Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

South Yorkshire and Derbyshire Gas Bill.

East Surrey Water Bill.

Brighton and Hove Gas Bill.

Bills committed.

London Electric, Metropolitan District, Central London, and City and South London Railway Companies Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),

Sheffield Corporation Bill (Certified Bill) (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Friday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURAL CREDITS.

Mr. STUART: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any negotiations have been taking place aimed at formulating an agricultural credits scheme for Scotland; and, if so, when he anticipates that the scheme will be put into operation?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I would refer the hon. Member to the
reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) on this subject last Tuesday.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman's Department taking any steps to expedite this matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already said that every step is being taken that I can take in order to expedite this matter.

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that it is very hard that English farmers should have the benefit of this scheme and that Scottish farmers should not?

Mr. ADAMSON: I understand that perfectly, but my hon. Friends who are pressing this question so persistently also know the difficulties that we are in with regard to the Scottish banks.

Mr. SKELTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of an early settlement of this important question?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already promised that we will get this matter settled as soon as we possibly can.

LAND DRAINAGE (GRANTS).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is yet in a position to announce the terms upon which grants are to be made available under the Government's land drainage scheme; when application forms will be available for fanners who wish to apply for grants; and if he will state to what circumstances, avoidable or unavoidable, the delay which inconveniences both farmers and tile manufacturers in publishing the scheme is due?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The terms of the scheme have now been adjusted. Subject to the approval of Parliament, a sum of £30,000 will be made available on the Vote of the Department for the year 1930 for field drainage and heather-burning purposes, as compared with £15,800 in the current year. This means an increased provision for field drainage alone of £14,200. The conditions of the scheme are similar to those of a year ago, with the exception that the limit of the Department's grant to £6 per acre in the case of tile drainage is withdrawn. Application forms will be issued as soon as possible. With regard to the last part
of the question, it is necessary to give consideration to the details of a scheme before it is finally approved.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As this scheme has only been varied in one particular, surely there has been rather an undue delay in announcing it. Does not the Secretary of State for Scotland realise that the farmers have not time in which to make their arrangements for doing drainage work as early as they would like, and that the whole of the grant will not be used, and will he be able to ensure that he will get an earlier announcement made of the scheme next time?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have not intimated that the whole of the grant will not be used.

Mr. SKELTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make certain that the applicants will get earlier notice, because this in the past has been one of the causes of holding up the work to be done under such a scheme?

Mr. ADAMSON: I do not agree that that is the main cause for holding up the scheme, but steps will be taken to let farmers know as early as possible.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cause of holding of these schemes?

Mr. ADAMSON: There has been no holding up of schemes. I think, if the right hon. Gentleman had paid attention to my answer to the first part of the question, he would realise that in the first place the grant is increased from £15,800 to £30,000.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I know, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that that announcement was made about a fortnight ago, that yet no steps have been taken, and that the proposed scheme varies only in one particular from the scheme which was before the House of Commons a year ago?

Mr. ADAMSON: Even although it was intimated a fortnight ago, the application forms, as I have already said, are being prepared and will be allocated as soon as possible.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (RELIEF OF DISTRESS).

Mr. DICKSON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any report of exceptional distress in the Highlands and Islands owing to failure of crops; whether there is any available balance to meet such distress in any fund at his disposal; and, if not, what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): I have received representations that in certain districts in the Western Islands hardship exists as a result of the failure of the summer fishing, but I have no evidence that there is any exceptional distress necessitating special measures in the area. As regards the second part of the question, there is no fund at my disposal for the purpose mentioned, but I am informed that the Trustees of the Highlands and Islands Distress Relief Fund (1924) hold a balance which, subject to the terms of a scheme of administration authorised by the Court of Session, may be applied in the relief of distress in the Highlands and Islands. I am also informed that the Trustees would be prepared to co-operate in any necessary steps to meet a situation of distress in the area. The Clerk of the Trustees is Mr. Archibald Campbell, Junior, W.S., 18, Duke Street, Edinburgh.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. WATSON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received any protest from the town council of Dunfermline against the provisions of Section 8 (7) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, which prevent the representatives from large burghs on the county council taking part in the election of the convener and the county clerk; and if he intends to introduce legislation to remove this grievance?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As I have already indicated, I cannot, in view of the limited purposes for which large burghs are represented on the reconstituted county councils, give any undertaking as to legislation to amend the Local Government (Scotland) Act at the present time.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the county councils are splitting the work of the education authorities into five parts, which, of itself, necessitates more power being granted in the appointment of either clerk or convener of the council, and, in view of the facts, will he not consider the question of introducing amending legislation?

Mr. JOHNSTON: These facts are continually brought to our notice, but the question is purely one of Parliamentary time, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not in a position to promise Parliamentary time for that purpose.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: Is it not a fact that, when this Act was before the House as a Bill-assurance was given by the Government at that time that representatives from large burghs on the county council were just as entitled as anybody else to vote for the convener, and also that they were eligible to be selected as convener?

Mr. JOHNSTON: We are informed that what is going on now, the practice that is now proceeding, is within the terms of the Statute, and all that I am able to say is that we are not in a position to promise the necessary Parliamentary time for an amending Bill.

Major WOOD: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, though the members of the new county councils have been elected and have held frequent meetings, payment of travelling expenses as provided by Section 17 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, is not permitted till the Act comes into operation in May, 1930; and whether he proposes to take any action to provide for the period of transition?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. To provide for the period before. 16th May would require legislation, for which there is, I am afraid, no immediate prospect of Parliamentary time, unless a measure for this purpose would be treated as entirely non-contentious.

GLASGOW TOWN COUNCIL (INVESTIGATIONS).

Dr. FORGAN: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the terms
of reference of the inquiry recently conducted by the Procurator-Fiscal into charges of corrupt practices in the affairs of the Glasgow Town Council included matters other than the licensing bench; if so, whether, in regard to such other matters, charges of a more specific nature implicating individual councillors have been investigated; and whether he will expedite publication of the Lord Advocate's findings in order to restore, in so far as the results of these investigations may permit, the good name, collectively and severally, of the members of the Glasgow Corporation?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The investigations which are being made by the Procurator-Fiscal under the instructions of the Lord Advocate are not limited to matters relating to licensing. There will be no avoidable delay on the part of the Lord Advocate in reaching a decision as to what, if any, action it may be his duty to take as a result of these investigations.

DUNOON AND CLOCH (MOTOR FERRY).

Dr. FORGAN: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps have been taken by the Government to ascertain the practicability of the proposal to establish a motor ferry between Dunoon, in the County of Argyllshire, and Cloch, in the County of Renfrew?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. The proposal to establish a motor ferry between Dunoon and Cloch has not been brought to my notice by the local authorities concerned. I have ascertained, however, that the project has been discussed by the Dunoon Town Council and the railway company, but that it is not likely to mature.

MENTAL AND PHYSICAL DEFECTIVES (GOVERNMENT GRANT).

Dr. FORGAN: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of the value of the work being carried out in Scotland by after-care committees in connection with mental and physical defectives, he will consider the advisability of increasing the average annual Government grant of £18 to a sum more commensurate with their needs?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Section 38 of the Mental Deficiency and Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1913, which authorises Exchequer
contributions towards the expenses of societies assisting defectives, is repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, as from 16th May, 1930. Under the last-mentioned Act contributions for the purposes mentioned may be made by county and town councils, and a scheme providing for such contributions may be made by the General Board of Control. The attention of county and town councils has been drawn to these provisions of the Act.

HOUSING (SLATES).

Mr. McKINLAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, seeing that he issued on 23rd December to the local authorities in Scotland an appeal to them to use, so far as possible, goods and materials of home production, and that, despite this appeal, the corporation of Glasgow is ordering large quantities of slates from the Irish Free State, he will state what further steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter; and whether he is aware that Scottish slates are the same price and of greater resistance to atmospheric changes?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am causing a further communication to be addressed to the corporation of Glasgow urging them to consider as to utilising to the largest extent available Scottish slates on their housing schemes, subject to prices being reasonable. I have seen an announcement by the Killaloe Slate Quarry Company, Limited, of Nenagh, in the Irish Free State, that it has received orders for 5,000 tons of slates to be delivered in Glasgow this year. As regards the latter part of the question, I am informed that recent tenders received in Glasgow show practically the same price for slater work carried out with Scottish slates and with slates from the Irish Free State. I am advised that the former slate generally is a better weathering slate than the latter.

Mr. McKlNLAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the agent for the Irish Free State slates is a member of the Glasgow City Council, and what steps is he prepared to take to prevent councillors in future being directly or indirectly concerned in these contracts?

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the serious implications which may arise from ques-
tions and answers on this matter, I suggest that it should not be pursued by way of supplementary questions and answers.

Colonel ASHLEY: Are Scottish slates available?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, certainly.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Was the hon. Gentleman only expressing his opinion when he said that Scottish slates are better than Irish slates, and has he experience of the weather-resisting properties of good Irish slates?

Mr. VAUGHAN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Welsh slates are better than both Irish and Scottish slates?

FISHING INDUSTRY (RELIEF AND LOANS).

Major WOOD: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will issue a full explanation of the fishermen's net-replacement scheme, setting forth the principle upon which grants will be made and the conditions upon which loans will be given; whether there is any time limit within which applications have to be made; and when he will be in a position to announce his scheme to assist fishermen who lost their nets before or after 11th November last?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given on 23rd ultimo to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) regarding the arrangements for the administration of the Lord Provosts' Relief Fund and the principle of distribution of the fund, and to the replies given to questions on 21st ultimo on the subject of credit facilities for the purchase of fishing gear. The conditions on which loans will be given from the funds to be placed at the disposal of the Fishery Board for Scotland have now been adjusted and will be intimated at an early date. The final dates for the receipt of applications for grants from the Relief Fund or for loans will be published in due course.

Major WOOD: I am asking for this information precisely because they have no idea of the terms on which these loans are granted. Can the right hon. Gentleman say, for instance, whether they have to have any ready money, or are they to get all they require by way of loan?

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is very much need to have a fuller statement issued publicly by the Committee in charge of the administration of this fund, to enable fishermen to understand the conditions under which applications can be made, and to enable the local committees to understand the duties that are thrown upon them?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already made a reply giving a full explanation of the fund, and I have, in my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Banff (Major Wood) told him that forms, and the conditions under which loans will be given, will be published at an early date.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the specific point—have the fishermen to provide 50 per cent. of the money in this scheme, as they did in the last scheme?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already informed the hon. and gallant Member that the conditions are being issued shortly, and will be in the hands of the fishermen.

Major WOOD: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is becoming a debate.

HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES.

Major WOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the reason for the delay in dealing with the harbour improvement schemes which were submitted at his urgent request by harbour authorities last autumn; and whether, seeing that unemployment is at its greatest in these fishing centres at the present time, he will say when decisions with regard to the applications may be expected?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: There has been no delay in dealing with applications in cases where definite schemes and plans have been submitted. I must point out that such schemes not only require to be carefully examined by technical experts, but must also be considered on their individual merits and in relation to the fishery harbour problem as a whole. A number of harbour schemes representing a large expenditure have already been sanc-
tioned, and I anticipate that decisions in four or five further cases will be intimated shortly.

ENGLISH-BORN RESIDENTS.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give the number of English-born people resident in Scotland; and, if so, provide the information now?

Mr. JOHNSTON: According to the Report on the 1921 Census, the number of English-born persons resident in Scotland was 189,385. This is the most recent information available.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: How many Scottish-born people are resident in England?

Mr. VAUGHAN: Is it possible to have the number of Scottish people in England and Wales?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It would be if a question were put on the Paper.

Mr. BECKETT: May I ask how they all get a living?

LANDLORDS AND TENANTS (LEGISLATION).

Mr. TRAIN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he proposes to introduce legislation for Scotland on the same lines as the Landlord and Tenant Act for England and Wales?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am considering this matter, but I am not in a position to hold out any prospects of legislation during the present Session.

Mr. TRAIN: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among shopkeepers and business-people that they are not getting a fair deal, and that people in England and Wales are much better off than they are; and will he do something to remove this grievance?

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feeling of many of the shopkeepers about this injustice?

Mr. JOHNSTON: We are aware that there is some dissatisfaction in the matter, but the only point at the moment is the question of Parliamentary time.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons in Scotland over the age of 65 who are in receipt of pensions under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. JOHNSTON: As at the 30th January, 1930, there were in payment in Scotland 122,822 old age pensions, of which 59,513 were payable under the Contributory Pensions Acts to persons between the ages of 65 and 70, and 63,309 were payable to persons over the age of 70 by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1925 free from the means test.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: On a point of Order. May I ask at this point, Scottish questions having finished, whether you will allow an extra 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, in justice to other Members who have 118 questions on the Paper, in view of the inordinate time taken by the Scottish questions?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not within my power to extend the time for questions: that is a matter for the House. The hon. Member will agree that Scotsmen are always very thorough.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

WORK SCHEMES (LAND ACQUISITION).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 21.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he proposes to introduce the Bill to further enable local authorities to acquire land for the purposes of unemployment schemes; and when the text of the Bill will be available?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there is a considerable pressure of business and I am not in a position to say when it will be possible for the matter to which he refers to be dealt with. I would, however, remind the right hon. Gentleman that I have already taken steps to accelerate the passage of certain Private Bills; most of these Bills contain provisions regarding the acquisition of land.

Sir K. WOOD: But does not the right hon. Gentleman remember pointing out to the House the urgency of this matter, and can he at any rate say whether it will be proceeded with this Session?

Mr. THOMAS: I did point out the urgency, and I only regret the difficulty of getting business through the House of Commons.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Bill is in draft?

AGED WORKERS (PENSIONS).

Sir K. WOOD: 25.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government have now come to any conclusion concerning the course they will adopt with reference to the proposal to mitigate unemployment by facilitating the retirement and pension of aged workers: and whether the matter is to be considered by the Cabinet Committee dealing with social insurance?

Mr. THOMAS: Various proposals have been considered by the Government but no practicable scheme has yet been devised.

Sir K. WOOD: Then may we regard this matter as properly and decently buried?

HON. MEMBERS: No!

DISTRESSED AREAS (NEW INDUSTRIES).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 26.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the nature of the help which he offered to certain firms in the purchase of land and relief of rates on condition that they would start work in distressed areas; and what inducements are now available for firms who are willing to establish themselves in distressed areas?

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. and gallant Member will refer to the replies which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on the 28th January, he will see that there is no suggestion of a scheme of financial aid by the Government such as he appears to have in mind.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Can the right hon. Genteman say what form the aid is to take? Is it in the acquisition of land and the reduction of rates: those were the two points he mentioned?

Mr. THOMAS: I said nothing about the acquisition of land. What I said was that already a number of municipalities had offered special inducements to firms to come to their particular districts. I am anxious to encourage firms to go, if possible, into the distressed areas.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Am I to read into the reply that the right hon. Gentleman did not, in fact, offer any inducements either as regards the acquisition of land or the reduction of rates?

Mr. THOMAS: I said then, and I repeat now, that I asked particular firms to discuss the matter.

LIVERPOOL.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: 27 and 28.
asked the Lord Privy Seal (1) if he can state the substance of any arrangement come to between officers of the Liverpool City Council and a representative of the Unemployment Grants Committee at a meeting held in Liverpool on Tuesday, 28th January;
(2) if any further grants have been approved to the Liverpool City Council for the relief of unemployment since 28th January?

Mr. THOMAS: The discussion in Liverpool on Tuesday the 28th January resulted in the removal of some misunderstanding as to the nature of the schemes for which grants might be recommended by the Unemployment Grants Committee, and it is hoped that the Liverpool Town Council will be able to submit schemes of a greater employment value than the majority of those so far put forward. The Committee met yesterday for the first time since the discussion took place. At that meeting they recommended grants in respect of two schemes of a minor character put forward by the Council.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: May I ask whether the representative of the Unemployment Grants Committee had any authority to tell the officers of the Liverpool City Council that in formulating their plans of work the relief of unemployment was to be a secondary consideration?

Mr. THOMAS: I know nothing of the statement. The officer in question is not under my jurisdiction. If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will ascertain the facts.

REORGANISATION OF INDUSTRY (FINANCIAL FACILITIES).

Major NATHAN: 30.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what organisations he intends to be included in the term the City in relation to the reorganisation and financing of industry?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the statement I made on this subject, in the course of the Debate in the House yesterday.

Mr. ALLEN: Is it not a fact that before industry can be reorganised the financial system requires reorganisation?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL TUNNEL.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 23.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can now make any statement as to the date of publication of the Report of the Channel Tunnel Committee; and whether he can indicate the nature of the additional material which he has recently submitted to it for its consideration?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which I made on this subject in the course of the Debate yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

MOTOR AND CYCLE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. MANDER: 24.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the name of the organisation representing the British cycle and motor-cycle manufacturers with whom he is carrying on negotiations in connection with the export trade?

Mr. THOMAS: I am in communication with the British Cycle and Motor Cycle Manufacturers' and Traders' Union, Limited.

Mr. MANDER: May I ask the "Noble Lord" if the statement he made before Christmas was not very misleading, in view of the fact that until quite recently the association he mentioned knew nothing about these negotiations?

Mr. THOMAS: I must, thank the hon. Member for the word "Noble." I will keep the particular question in mind.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
he is aware that, in view of the number of American motor cars that are likely to flood the European markets in the present year, European countries are contemplating legislative action, and that a Bill is to be introduced in Germany to establish a quota; and whether he will consider similar legislation in this country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I am given to understand that the question of increasing the import duties on motor cars is under consideration in a few European countries. As regards the position in Germany, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave on 28th January to the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon). As regards the last part of the question, I fear I can add nothing to the statements that have already been made regarding our own import duties on motor cars.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French Government are already doubling their import duties on cars, and that Germany is thinking of establishing aquota; and is it not a fact that all those American cars which would have gone to those countries are now liable to be sent to this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not familiar with the first part of the supplementary question, but I have reason to doubt whether there would be any large scale dumping such as that which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. MOND: Is it not a matter of some importance in the formation of the Government's policy that the Government should be acquainted with the items mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend?

LACE AND SILK DUTIES.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 29.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has made representations with regard to the lace and silk duties similar to those that he has made with regard to the McKenna Duties?

Mr. THOMAS: I have not met any representatives of the industries named but it is common knowledge that representations have been made to the Government in regard to these and other duties.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: What I asked was whether the right hon. Gentleman had made representations to the Government. He said that he had made representations about the McKenna Duties?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already said that I have not met the representatives of these industries, and do not know what are their particular views, except so far as they have published them.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if these duties are removed, there will be a great deal of unemployment; and will he make representations to the Government?.

Mr. HANNON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, quite seriously, whether he is not fully conscious of the serious position in which these industries will be placed if these duties are interfered with, and—

Mr. SPEAKER: Major Nathan.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has consulted or received a report from the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris with regard to the proposed tariff truce?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer is in the negative.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the Chamber of Commerce in Paris are absolutely opposed to this proposal, as they look upon it as stereotyping this country as a dumping heap for the world?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am aware that certain views have been expressed in criticism, but I do not for one moment accept the latter part of the hon. and gallant Member's supplementary question.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: That is what they said.

AMERICAN TALKING FILMS (IMPORTATION).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to protect the English language as spoken by the people of this country, he will take steps to limit
the import of American talking films and to encourage the production of British films?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Talking pictures are within the scope of the Cinematograph Films Act, which was passed to encourage the production of British films, but I am not prepared to place direct restrictions upon the importation of American talking films into this country.

Sir A. KNOX: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Films Act has largely failed in its object? This is not a party question, and I would like to know if the right hon. Gentleman does not think that it is time that ho should do something to protect the language and the ideas of Britishers in this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am afraid that I cannot accept that statement. After all, the legislation referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was only passed in 1927. I know that there are difficulties in applying it, but I think it is much too early to say that the Act has broken down.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Can the right hon. Gentleman do nothing to secure that we should sec good films, whether they are American or British?

Mr. GRAHAM: That, of course, is one of the objects of legislation, but the primary object is to secure a quota of British films.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to accept a Scotsman as an authority on the English language?

Mr. GRAHAM: Certainly.

PILCHARDS (IMPORT DUTY, ITALY).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 55.
the President of the Board of Trade if he will approach the Italian Government with a view to getting the duty on pilchards reduced?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Representations were made in this matter in 1923, and resulted in a reduction of the import duty on pilchards from 6 gold lire to 4 gold lire per 100 kilogrammes. This reduced rate is, so far as I am aware, still in operation, and I do not consider that
further representations in the matter would be likely to serve any useful purpose.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, try to get this duty reduced, as it is a very heavy duty; and is there any definite reason why he will not try to help this very important industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: The difficulty is that, before we can make another representation, there would require to be a stronger case than I am afraid exists on the facts; but I will readily look into the matter again.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman's hands are tied by reason of the fact that he has no tariffs with which to bargain?

Mr GRAHAM: No, Sir.

ARGENTINA (SILK IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. HANNON: 59.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to state the extent to which the recent concession of the Argentine Government in the remission of import duties on silk and artificial silk from Great Britain is affected by commercial agreements embodying most-favoured-nation treatment between the Argentine and other countries?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: A list of the countries with which Argentina has treaties containing a most-favoured-nation Clause was given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in answer to a question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) on the 9th December. As I informed the hon. Member in answer to a question on the 21st January, no reduction in the duties on artificial silk goods has yet been made, the scope of the reduction being still under the consideration of the Argentine Government.

Mr. HANNON: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer really amount to this, that the so-called concession by the Argentine Government means, in point of fact, nothing at all to the silk industry of this country; and is it the fact that 11 foreign countries have protested against this concession being made to us?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not aware of the last point, but it would be quite wrong to say that it does not represent a concession to this country. It need not, of course, have any bearing on concessions elsewhere, but it is of definite value to us.

Mr. MATTERS: Is it not the fact that, largely owing to ill-informed criticism in this country, the agreement referred to is actually cancelled?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should not like to say that definitely at this stage, but I certainly think it is very unfortunate, from the point of view of trade, if criticism is cast on a proposal of this kind.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not very important to this House that the British Empire should be considered before a foreign country?

Mr. HURD: Is it not the fact that most of the difficulties that have arisen have arisen because of the obscurity of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman himself and of other representatives of the Government, and the difference between those statements and the statements of the British Ambassador?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, Sir; I do not agree with that for a single moment. The very clearest possible statements have been made repeatedly in this House.

UNITED STATES (COPPER EXPORTS).

Mr. HANNON: 60.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the operations in the United States of a body known as Copper Exporters, Incorporated, which body has been formed for the purpose of stabilising copper prices and controlling its export; and, seeing that British manufacturers are placed at a disadvantage in contrast with their American competitors because of the high prices fixed by this American syndicate for deliveries in Great Britain, will he secure through the commercial attaché at Washington a full report on the activities of this combine?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: My attention has been called to the operations of the body referred to, and I will continue to watch the position both through reports from the Commercial Counsellor in Washington and otherwise.

Mr. HANNON: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the protest made in the United States that we made certain restrictions with regard to rubber: and are the United States now to have a monopoly in copper which they have denied to us with regard to our rubber industry?

Mr. GRAHAM: It would be utterly impossible to discuss a large matter of this kind in reply to a supplementary question. I will get the fullest, information, but I have no power to interfere.

Mr. HANNON: In view of the reply given by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

COAL EXPORTS TO ITALY (BRITISH SHIPPING).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 63.
asked the President of the Board of Trade in reference to the agreement with the Italian Government to take 1,000,000 tons of coal from this country, what proportion of that coal has already been shipped; how much has been carried in Italian vessels; how much in British ships; and how much, if any, in ships of other nationalities?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am advised that 21,400 tons of this coal has already been shipped, all in Italian vessels.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Did this arrangement made with the Italian Government give them absolute and uncontrolled discretion as to the freight and as to what ships the coal should be carried in?

Mr. GRAHAM: That question hardly arises, but I negotiated this matter personally at The Hague in August, and it was a concession to get a firm order for 1,000,000 tons of coal a year for the British coalfields. I could not possibly, get any further concession as regards the ships in which it was to be carried.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, in view of the obvious hardship that is inflicted upon British shipping by this arrangement, will representations be made, and some chance given to British shipping?

Mr. WALLHEAD: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members prefer that their supplementary questions should be answered without intervention by other hon. Members.

Mr. GRAHAM: The short reply is that this matter was negotiated in all its details, and I can only tell the House that the agreement that we got was the limit of the concession that could be obtained.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Does this mean that British shipping is to get none of this tonnage until the available Italian shipping is filled up?

Mr. GRAHAM: The order for coal is a definite concession, and we could not push it an inch beyond that into the question of shipping.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the condition of British shipping worse now than it was when the previous Government was in power?

EXPORT TRADE.

Mr. HANNON: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the percentage increase in the world's export trade from 1913 to 1929; the share of this export trade enjoyed by Great Britain in these years, respectively; and to what causes the change is attributed?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: A recent publication of the League of Nations contains particulars of the export trade in 1928 of all the more important trading countries of the world, resulting in a total for all those countries of 32,233,000,000 of United States dollars, equivalent to approximately £6,623,000,000. Of this total the exports of produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom from this country, £723,600,000, constitute 10.9 per cent. Figures for the year 1913 adequately comparable with those which I have stated for 1928 are not available. New international boundaries have replaced those existing in 1913, and the data of international trade movements are, of course, modified by such changes.

Mr. HANNON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. I want to know what is the proportionate increase of the export trade of all the countries in the world and what percentage ours was during the same period?

Mr. GRAHAM: The figure of 13.9 is in my mind as having been stated, but I must warn the hon. Member that it is very misleading as regards the postwar figure due to the great changes in international boundaries, so that what was internal trade now figures in exports.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact, in face of the figures published by the League of Nations, that our proportion of the export trade of the world has substantially decreased while the proportion of other countries has increased?

Mr. GRAHAM: Up to a point that statement can be made, but I ask the House to make it subject to the important modifications I have pointed out.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOWER THAMES TUNNEL.

Major NATHAN: 32.
asked the Lord Privy Seal the position of the scheme for the lower Thames Tunnel?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on the 21st January to a question by the Member for the Dartford Division (Mr. Mills), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it a fact that objection has been raised to this tunnel, because it is not deep enough and that objection has been raised by one of the Chambers of Commerce?

Mr. MORRISON: Objection has been raised by the Port of London Authority and their objection is under consideration. It should not be assumed that the justification for the objection is established, but the objection is being considered by my Department.

Colonel ASHLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a public inquiry will be held?

Mr. MORRISON: The position is that the Bill has been put down for Second Reading in this House but has been objected to. If and when the Bill receives a Second Reading, there will be public proceedings on the Committee stage.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Minister tell us whether there are any practical objections which will prevent the Bill being brought forward?

Mr. MORRISON: The Bill is before the House. It is intimately connected, not only with transport, but also with unemployment, and is an exceedingly important Bill. I am very anxious that we shall get the Second Heading early, and then these points of difficulty can be dealt with on the Committee stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES.

GOVERNMENT POLICY (REPRESENTATIONS).

Mr. MOND: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had any requests from representatives of safeguarded industries asking him to receive deputations respecting the future of safeguarding; whether he has acceded to their wishes; and, if not, what has been the nature of his replies?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. As regards the third part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I returned on the 28th January to questions by the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Were not representations in fact made to the Cabinet by the Lord Privy Seal? Does the President of the Board of Trade say he has not seen him?

Mr. MOND: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any representations requesting the abolition of Safeguarding Duties from any organisations; whether he has seen any deputations from them on the subject; and, if so, whether he can state the nature of his replies'?

Mr. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I received in December a deputation from the Free Trade Union on this and other matters, and reminded them of the policy of the Government as already stated in this House.

Mr. MOND: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman, while he is not prepared to receive a deputation from British manufacturers, is prepared to receive deputations from other people who are only interested in the removal of
the duties for the benefit of foreign manufacturers? Is that the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already informed the House that I have received many written representations with regard to these duties, but the policy of the Government has been declared, and if a deputation wishes to continue the duties, we have indicated our opinion that it would be a mere waste of time to receive such a deputation.

Mr. MOND: Will the President of the Board of Trade say why it would be a waste of time to receive deputations! If it is a waste of time to receive deputations in favour of those duties, why is it not a waste of time to receive deputations against them?

Mr. GRAHAM: The position is not as stated by the hon. Member. The Free Trade Union deputation came to me, not on this point only, but on very much wider questions, of which the tariff truce at Geneva was one.

Mr. JAMES HUDSON: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that the hon. Member who put this question with regard to the Free Trade Union has in his father a former President of that body?

WRAPPING PAPER.

Major COLVILLE: 61.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a communication from the British Paper Bag Federation stating that it does not wish the Safeguarding Duty on imported wrapping papers to be removed; if he is aware that this federation represents the largest users of wrapping paper in the country; and what answer he has returned?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I have received such a communication from the British Paper Bag Federation, whose products are also protected by the duty in question. Their letter does not ask for a reply, but the policy of the Government in regard to Safeguarding Duties is well known.

Major COLVILLE: If the industry is benefited, and a large section of the consumers is satisfied with the present arrangement, in whose interest is it proposed to remove this Safeguarding Duty?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is exactly the kind of material which is in debate in the House. I could not add a single word to the previous statements of Government policy with regard to these duties.

Mr. MANDER: Is it not the fact that a great many users are extremely dissatisfied?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot have a Debate on the matter at Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (MINISTERS' SPEECHES).

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation enabling Ministers to speak in either House of Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. MANDER: Has the attention of the Prime Minister been called to an Act of Henry VIII under which the Lord Privy Seal is entitled to sit on the Woolsack, and does the "Noble Lord" intend to avail himself of that privilege?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a form of question which is not allowed in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOD IMPORTS.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the anxiety there is among all engaged in the agricultural industry in Scotland on account of the disaster which is threatened to that industry by the uncontrolled and subsidised importation of foreign oats and wheat under the cost of production; and what action the Government proposes to take?

Mr. BOOTHBY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will consider the possibility of placing an embargo upon imported cereals which are subsidised by foreign Governments?

The PRIME MINISTER: Representations have been received in the sense of the first part of the right hon. and
learned Member's question. As regards the last part of his question and the question by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) I have nothing to add to what I said yesterday in reply to questions on this subject.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Has the Prime Minister taken into consideration the fact that nothing will be done until April, when this question comes before the Economic Committee of the League of Nations; and will he meanwhile, for his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of the House, appoint a committee to investigate the true facts of the case, and find out the indignation which is expressed by all classes of the agricultural community, and so prepare himself for the discussion in April?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can assure my right hon. Friend that what he suggests should be done by a committee is being done at the present moment by the ordinary staff at the disposal of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the PRIME Minister aware that this matter is just as important to English as to Scottish agriculture?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Reichstag Economic Council has condemned this policy as a subsidy from Germany in aid of the British consumer?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have seen a statement to that effect, but whether that has been done or not I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED KINGDOM (DOMINION STATUS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will call round-table conferences of the interested parties with a view to conferring Dominion status on England, Scotland, and Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that I am unable to adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME AND FOREIGN INVESTMENTS (INCOME TAX).

Mr. ALLEN: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the
desirability of encouraging investment of capital in home and dominion undertakings, he will, in the coming Budget, adopt the principle of discriminating against income derived from foreign investments and in favour of income derived from home and imperial investments?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I cannot anticipate the Budget statement.

Mr. ALLEN: Is it not a fact that taxation at present discriminates against home capital and in favour of capital invested abroad?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That is a matter of opinion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Commander BELLAIRS: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that a new Government staff is being set up, called the Economic General Staff, for which expenditure will be incurred this financial year, in what form this expenditure will be sanctioned before the end of the financial year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I presume the hon. and gallant Member refers to the expenditure during the current financial year in respect of the Economic Advisory Council. This expenditure, which will be quite small, will be met from funds already available on the Treasury Vote.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this small expenditure sets up a committee even more important than the analogous Committee, the Committee of Imperial Defence; and is not this rather a backstairs method of setting up a, new Government Department?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If it be a backstairs method of setting up a new Government Department, it is following precisely the precedent of the previous Government when they set up the Committee of Civil Research.

Captain BOURNE: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of presenting a Supplementary Estimate in the form of a token Vote, so that the House may have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINE WORKERS (PENSIONS).

Miss LEE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost of providing a pension of 30s. per week for all mine-workers at 60 years of age?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The additional cost of providing a total pension of 30s. a week for coalminers of 60 years of age and upwards, effectively connected with the industry when granted the pension, may be roughly estimated at £5,000,000 a year rising to £10,000,000 a year. For a variety of reasons it would be impossible to confine a scheme of the nature suggested either to one depressed industry or to a group of depressed industries. The figures I have given, therefore, are but an imperfect reflection of the cost involved.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY (FEES).

Mr. THURTLE: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is customary to pay fees to members of Royal Commissions and Commissions of Inquiry, appointed to inquire into specific questions; and what commissions now in existence are receiving such payment?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In the case of members of Royal Commissions and similar Committees of Inquiry, whose expenses are borne on the Vote for Royal Commissions, &c. (Class I., Vote 20), fees in addition to expenses are not payable save in wholly exceptional circumstances. No payments of the kind are now being made from the Vote in question. If my hon. Friend has in mind the payment of commissions of inquiry not within the category to which I have referred, I would suggest that he should address his inquiry to the Minister concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY ACTION CLAIMS.

Mr. OLIVER BALDWIN: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether ex-Sergeant J. H. Arakelian, D.C.M., of 302, Ilford Lane, Ilford, can be considered an Englishman for the purposes of his financial claim under the War reparations scheme, since he was accepted as such by the British military authorities when he enlisted early in the War?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The answer is in the negative. I would refer my hon. Friend to the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on Compensation for Suffering and Damage by Enemy Action and to paragraph 22 of their first report (Cmd. 1798 of 1923). The claim was also considered by the Commission for the Assessment of Damage suffered in Turkey, but was rejected as the claimant was not at the date of damage a national of any one of the contracting Powers to the convention on this subject, signed at Paris on 23rd November, 1923 (Cmd. 2028 of 1924).

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

LINE-THROWING APPLIANCES.

Mr. W. M. ADAMSON: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act, which operated from July last, has been carried out in respect to the number of British ships being equipped with line-throwing appliances?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I cannot state the number of ships carrying line-throwing appliances under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping (Line Throwing Appliance) Act, 1928, and the Statutory Rules made thereunder, but so far as the Board's surveyors are aware, the Rules are being complied with.

STRATHY POINT (LIGHTHOUSE).

Sir A. SINCLAIR: 58.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the scheme of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses for a lighthouse on Strathy Point has yet come before the Board of Trade; and, if so, what decision has been reached in regard to the proposed lighthouse?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: This proposal, with others for new lighthouse works, will be considered at a Conference to be held on the 7th February between representatives of the Board of Trade, the General Lighthouse Authorities and the Advisory Committee of Shipowners, Underwriters and Merchants, after which a decision will be reached.

LIGHT DUES.

Mr. KELLY: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount raised from light dues in 1929; and what
amounts were paid over to the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, the Northern Lights Commissioners, and the Irish Lights Commissioners?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The total amount of light dues collected in the year ended 31st March, 1929, the date of the latest completed accounts, was £999,968. The amounts transferred to the Lighthouse authorities to meet their direct expenditure during the year were as follow:
Trinity House, £516,418; Northern Lights Commissioners £153,889; Irish Lights Commissioners, £206,535.

Mr. KELLY: In view of the large income of the Lights Commissioners, is there any likelihood of an improvement in the conditions and wages of the people employed?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a question of which my hon. Friend must give me notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL.

Miss LEE: 64.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Food Council will begin to operate; and if it is the intention of the Government that this or a similar council will also deal with profiteering in building materials?

Mr. GRAHAM: As I stated in reply to a question on 5th November, I have asked the Food Council to remain in being until the proposed Consumers' Council is set up. As regards building materials, I would explain that a Committee was set up in 1923 to survey and report on the prices of building materials. This Committee makes periodical reports, which are published.

Mr. LEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind how extremely serious this is to the housewife?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have indicated that, according to the present intention, the new Council will be a comprehensive body. I could not, however, give a precise reply on any particular point at present. The importance of the matter will not be overlooked.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will legislation be necessary to give the Council suitable powers?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Will that be introduced this Session?

Mr. GRAHAM: No, I cannot give any pledge as to the date of the legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-ENEMY DEBTS DEPARTMENT.

Mr. KELLY: 67.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of men and women now employed in the ex-Enemy Debts Department?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The staff of the Clearing Office (Enemy Debts) at home and abroad consist at the present date of 362 men and 25 women.

Mr. KELLY: Is there any likelihood of a decrease and, particularly in view of

recent revelations, of the Department closing down?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have replied to that question before, that the Department will be wound up when the work is overtaken, and there will be a progressive decrease. Beyond that I cannot go.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put:
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments to the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 135.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Egan, W. H.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Elmley, Viscount
Lawrence, Susan


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, Isaac
Lawson, John James


Ammon, Charles George
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Arnott, John
Freeman, Peter
Leach, W.


Ayles, Walter
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lees, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Batey, Joseph
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gill, T. H.
Logan, David Gilbert


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gillett, George M.
Longbottom, A. W.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Glassey, A. E.
Longden, F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Lowth, Thomas


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Bowen, J. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
McElwee, A.


Bromley, J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
McEntee, V. L.


Brooke, W.
Hall, F. (York. W. R., Normanton)
McKinlay, A.


Brothers, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Harbison, T. J.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Burgess, F. G.
Hardie, George D.
McShane, John James


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Haycock, A. W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Hayday, Arthur
Mansfield, W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
March, S.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marcus, M.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Markham, S. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Herriotts, J.
Marley, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mathers, George


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hoffman, P. C.
Matters, L. W.


Compton, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel
Maxton, James


Cove, William G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Messer, Fred


Daggar, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Millar, J. D.


Dallas, George
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mills, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Milner, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Isaacs, George
Montague, Frederick


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Johnston, Thomas
Morley, Ralph


Devlin, Joseph
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Dickson, T.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Dukes, C.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Duncan, Charles
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Mort, D. L.


Ede, James Chuter
Kelly, W. T.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Edge, Sir William
Kennedy, Thomas
Muff, G.


Edmunds, J. E.
Knight, Holford
Muggeridge, H. T.


Murnin, Hugh
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Townend, A. E.


Nathan, Major H. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Naylor, T. E.
Sherwood, G. H.
Turner, B.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shield, George William
Vaughan, D. J.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Viant, S. P.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shillaker, J. F.
Walker, J.


Palin, John Henry
Shinwell, E.
Wallace, H. W.


Paling, Wilfrid
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Palmer, E. T.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Perry, S. F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Watkins, F. C.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sinkinson, George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wellock, Wilfred


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
West, F. R.


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Westwood, Joseph


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snell, Harry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Raynes, W. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sorensen, R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Romeril, H. G.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Rowson, Guy
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wise, E. F.


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sanders, W. S.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Sandham, E.
Thurtle, Ernest



Sawyer, G. F.
Tillett, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scrymgeour, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


Scurr, John
Tout, W. J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ramsbotham, H.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Beaumont M. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut-Colonel E. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hammersley, S. S.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Skelton, A N.


Bracken, B.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon. Totnes)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Smith, R. W. (Aherd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon John Waller
Smithers, Waldron


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomson, Sir F.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tinne, J. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Long, Major Eric
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lymington, Viscount
Train, J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Meller, R. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mansell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Muirhead, A. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Womersley, W. J.


Dundale, Capt. T. L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Neill, Sir H.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Omsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Peake, Capt. Osbert



Ferguson, Sir John
Penny, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fielden, E. B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Captain Margesson.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Blasphemy Laws (Amendment) Bill): Sir Herbert Nield; and had appointed in substitutions Sir Boyd Merriman.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to make provision for the regulation of traffic on roads and of motor vehicles and otherwise with respect to roads and vehicles thereon; to make provision for the protection of third parties against risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles, and in connection with such protection to amend the Assurance Companies Act, 1909; to amend the law with respect to the powers of local authorities to provide public service vehicles; and for other purposes connected with the matters aforesaid." [Road Traffic Bill [Lords].

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 118.]

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Order for Committee read.

Mr. SPEAKER: Before the House proceeds to a Committee on this Bill, I have to deal with two Notices of Motion which have been put upon the Paper, one standing in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George),
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Coal Mines Bill that the Committee be empowered to consider Clauses providing for the acquisition of coal royalties and wayleaves,
and the other standing in the name of the hon. Member for Salford West (Mr. Haycock) and other hon. Members,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Coal Mines Bill that the Committee be empowered to consider Clauses providing for the transfer of the ownership of coal mines and the connected industries, as well as mineral rights, to a public authority constituted for this purpose.
I can deal with both the Instructions together. I must rule both of them outside the scope of the Bill. If they were included in the Bill, they would undoubtedly impose a fresh charge and would consequently need a new Money Resolution, and it would mean that the King's Recommendation would be required. The existing Money Resolution which the House passed the ether day empowers the Committee to deal only with those proposals which are actually provided for in that Money Resolution. Therefore, I must rule both these Instructions out of order.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the chair.]

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): I beg to move:
That the consideration of Part I be postponed until after the new Clauses (other than those in which Part I of the Bill or any Clause in that Part is mentioned) have been disposed of.
This Motion is worded in a slightly different form from the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.
4.0 p.m.
Before I come to the merits of this proposal, I think I might explain, quite
simply, and, I trust, clearly, the precise way in which this change would work, and it will be necessary to ask, to some extent, the indulgence of the chairman of the Committee if, for the purposes of explanation, I go a little beyond the strict terms of this proposal. If the Committee agrees to this proposition that Part I be postponed, we shall proceed immediately to pass to that part of the Bill dealing with hours of work, and overtake the Amendments to Part II. We should then proceed to the consideration of Part III dealing with the Coal Mines National Industrial Board and Amendments to that Part; then Part IV of the Bill, which, as it is printed, is very largely explanatory, and is a Part to which few, if any, Amendments have been put on the Paper. That will cover Parts II, III and IV of the Bill with Amendments. We should then turn to new Clauses which do not relate to Part I, and dispose of these new Clauses, and, having covered the whole of the ground in that way, we come back under this proposal to Part I and the Clauses which bear upon that part of the Bill. I think the whole House will agree that we should get into hopeless confusion if any other course were followed.
I propose to deal quite frankly and quite plainly with the case for this proposal. There is not the slightest reason why I should not refer in general terms to discussions which have taken place with hon. Members in other parts of the House. I am bound, of course, to acknowledge at once—what, indeed, the Committee generally recognises—that this is a controversial Bill on which there is ample room for division of opinion, and to remind the House that the whole object of the Government is to get a perfectly fair and impartial examination of its terms. There is no doubt whatever that it might be easier from some points of view to begin with the marketing proposals, and to regard the rest of the Bill as built on that part, but a very strong case can be made out on the other side for postponement, provided I make the circumstances under which the Government agree to postponement perfectly plain. I can say at this stage that as regards hon. and right hon. Members on the Government Benches and on the Liberal benches, there is a strong sub-
stantial agreement regarding three parts of the Bill. I should say there is substantial agreement regarding the hours of work, the National Industrial Board and the amalgamation proposals. That does not exclude the discussion of any of those parts and the analysis of such Amendments as may be proposed, but in the main there is agreement regarding three portions of the Bill.
We have always recognised that on the other side Part I and the marketing proposals were highly controversial, and there is not the slightest reason why I should not refer to discussions that have taken place for the purpose of trying to reach agreement regarding that part. In a matter of this kind relating to one of the great industries in the State, which has passed through times of remarkable difficulty, and is still exposed to very great risk in the markets at home and abroad, I should imagine that Parliament would wish to approach the problem in a constructive spirit, and, as far as we can do it at this Table, by laying aside party considerations. The Government attach the very greatest importance to Part I of the Bill. We have said all along that, having regard to the selling of coal, that is, the sale of coal at an unremunerative level, or a substantial part at a loss, some steps must be taken for the purpose of bringing the owners into line, preferably in district organisations, to dispose of their coal on terms which are fair and equitable, and which would avoid this weak selling and loss. Steps of that kind have been taken in other important industries in this country, but the real question, or the substantial problem, for the House of Commons, turns on the steps which, in our view, are necessary to bring in all owners in those districts, in other words, the compulsory element in order to make these schemes complete as regards the disposal of coal.
The position in the Government's view is that if Part I of this Bill is lost, that is, if these district schemes, which have for their object the prevention of sale of coal at a loss, and incidentally a loss falling not only on the side of ownership but on the side of a million men employed and those dependent on them—the Government's view is that if that is not to happen, then Part I sub-
stantially in its present form is required. But, of course, we are still aware that any proposal which means a regulation or, I would almost prefer to say, a rationing of output raises very large problems, and, in particular, it would raise that problem of the regulation of the efficient units in this country to which that quota will apply and of their relations to other units in competition. During the Second Reading discussion on this Bill it was quite clear that hon. Members in various parts of the House were very much concerned lest the effect of the coal arrangements might be to give a fresh lease of life, not deserved and not in the national interest, to weak or inefficient units, and, accordingly, we had to address our minds to the consideration of that problem.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not quite sure how far the right hon. Gentleman is going to discuss the necessity for this alteration in connection with particular parts of the Bill, but he cannot discuss the merits of Part I.

Mr. GRAHAM: No, that is a decided difficulty in which I am placed. I was trying to state simply the differences of view which were expressed during the Second Reading Debate, but I proposed to pass almost immediately from that and to say that in making the Government proposal that we should postpone consideration of Part I, I want to make it quite clear that we regard Part I as essential. I should hope that this is the only substantial point of difference remaining between us. One of the advantages, quite plainly, of this postponement is that we can direct our minds to the further analysis of that proposition, and do our best to secure agreement if that can be obtained. There is another general advantage in postponement in that it would have the effect of shortening our proceedings, an advantage which, I am sure, would impress Members in all parts of the House.
Whatever view we take of the future of this industry, there is no doubt that conditions will be difficult as long as the uncertainty arising from this legislation remains. In the interests of owners and men, the industry is entitled to know at the earliest possible moment what exactly this Bill proposes to do. I would ask the Committee in all fairness not to give
up its right to discussion, or anything like that, but to bear that constantly in mind in the analysis of this problem. I will not go beyond that this afternoon, because it is very difficult to obey the rules of Order and not stray away from the Motion. I, therefore, beg to move this Motion, which will have the effect of giving prior consideration to the other portions of the Bill.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I beg to move, "That the chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I recognise the difficulty in which the right hon. Gentleman is placed, and I sympathise with his position. He found it difficult to say all that he desired under the Rules of Order, and, not for the first time, I come to the rescue of the Government. I move this Motion so that the Debate may widen out to allow of all these doubtful points being cleared up. I do not propose to go into any detail as to how this entirely novel procedure will affect all the discussions on the Bill, for I have not the technical knowledge of the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman has, or which some of my friends who will follow me have, but I do rise to speak on very broad grounds, and those grounds are these: I think the right hon. Gentleman, for the first time in his life, has treated the House of Commons and the Opposition with very scant courtesy, and, I may add, not with that fairness that we expect from him. This is, as he said, a Bill of great complexity and great difficulty. It is a Bill to which as a party we are strongly opposed, but as the Opposition—the principal part of the Opposition—we have been at pains to do what we can to suggest Amendments to make the Bill, from our point of view, a better Bill.
We may be right or we may be wrong in the Amendments which we have put down, but we have had on the Paper now for many days to enable the Government to consider them adequately, the Amendments we think proper to put down on the first part of the Bill. We have not yet troubled to put down Amendments to the other parts, not believing that those Clauses would be reached for some time, and we were not yet aware how far the Clauses themselves might be affected by what the House might do. In the same way, Part II is a very important
part of the Bill. That, again, we were not prepared to discuss. We have not yet had time fully to consider all the points involved, and we did not consider it possible that Part II, a most important part, could possibly be taken before next week. That being the position, what do we find? We find the Government put down a Notice on the Paper which we see for the first time this morning. I take no exception—and I wish the Committee to mark this—to the fact that we were not consulted. I take exception to the fact that the first intimation we had was this morning.
My contention is that in a matter of this importance, the upsetting of the whole procedure on this Bill, that we should have had no warning, when the ordinary decencies of Parliamentary life would give us at least some days' notice, is a proceeding as novel as it is undesirable. One wonders very much how this eleventh-hour change is to be made. In seven months the Government have had time to consider these points, and to negotiate with their allies. They think it is a question of no importance what part of the Bill is taken first. I remember, some years ago, there was a most worthy Member of Parliament who sat for the Black Country, and I asked him once how he managed to get returned time after time. He said: "I have only one speech, but I begin at one place at the beginning; at the next place, I begin in the middle; and at the next place I begin at the end." The right hon. Gentleman is treating this Bill exactly as that most respected Member of the Liberal party in Victorian days treated his speech. I was very much amazed, although I need hardly say that I do not believe everything that I see in the newspapers, to note that the Government have set another precedent. Instead of asking a Leader of the Opposition to come to see them, they paid a visit to that Leader of the Opposition. I should like very much to know if that is true. I remember, although it is a good many years ago, that there was an Emperor Henry who paid a visit, at a very rough time of the year, to Canossa, which passed into a proverb and by-word in Europe for eight centuries.

HON. MEMBERS: What has this to do with the Coal Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: It has a good deal to do with the Coal Bill. Due submission was made by the Government to that leader of a section of the Opposition. The Government have been to Canossa, and it may well be that the results of that visit may be as grave in their ease as they were in the case of the Emperor. As far as I know, and I have been in this House a good many years, it is an absolutely unprecedented course that is suggested by the Government. I wish to make it quite clear that we have and can have no objection to any arrangement that may be come to between hon. and right hon. Members opposite and hon. and right hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side of the House. That has nothing to do with us, but what we do ask for is the ordinary decency and courtesy of treatment which we have a right to expect and which, I trust, we showed when we were in office. I am sure that it is the last thing that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would have done, if he had thought about it. It is not like him at all. It looks like being too clever, and he has never played that game. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration what I have said.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I think the Leader of the Opposition has been rather unreasonable. May I point out the circumstances? The Motion which has been moved by the President of the Board of Trade has been on the Order Paper for about three weeks, certainly for a fortnight. It was well known that it was being discussed between representatives of the Government and representatives of our party, and that it was quite possible that the Government, seeing how reasonable our proposal was, would recognise the advantage of it. I do not know to what extent I shall be entitled to discuss the merits of the proposal, but it is rather difficult to discuss the question to report Progress without showing how thoroughly reasonable the proposal is, and that no reasonable person would expect that it would not be moved ultimately and carried by the Committee. I should like a Ruling as to how far I shall be in order in discussing the proposal.

The CHAIRMAN: The Question before the House is that I do report Progress and ask leave to sit again. Reasons can be given why the Motion has been moved, and reasons can be given against it, but we cannot go into the merits of the Clauses affected.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I understand that. The notice has been or the Order Paper for at least a fortnight, possibly three weeks.

Mr. CHURCHILL: In your name.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Yes, in my name.

HON. MEMBERS: That makes all the difference. You are not a Member of the Government.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, but I happen to be a Member of this House, and as I have taken the trouble to go through the Amendments put down by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and have considered them very carefully, and what their effect will be, I naturally assumed that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite would extend the same courtesy to Amendments put down by us. It is a thoroughly reasonable Motion. What does it really mean? I will not go into the merits, but let us see what the three sections of the Bill mean. The sections which we shall reach to-night are the sections which impose obligations. If there are to be any burdens upon the mines, they are burdens which will be created by the two sections which we should reach to-night—the section relating to the curtailment of hours of labour and the section dealing with the Wages Board. The first section, Part I, is simply the provisions, by the Government to meet those obligations. It is in accordance with the traditions of the House of Commons that this section should be postponed. Supply comes first and Ways and Means afterwards. We decide first what are the obligations to be imposed upon the minas of this country, and we proceed to take steps in regard to price and quotas. What for? To meet some obligation which has not yet been created.
Until we have disposed of Clauses 9 and 10 it would be reasonable from the business point of view and from the traditions of the House of Commons that the
first thing we ought to discuss is the question whether we will impose those obligations, to begin with. Having decided to impose them, then we must decide on the extent of the obligations. I am not going to give any indication of our view beyond what I gave on the Second Reading. So far as we are concerned we will support the proposals in Clauses 9 and 10. It is for a Committee of the House of Commons to decide, not merely whether it will adopt the Clauses of the Government, but under what conditions and with what reservations. It is only when we know what form Clauses 9 and 10 will ultimately take that we can discuss the question of how we are going to meet the loss, if there is to be a loss, that will be imposed upon the mines by the addition of the obligations under Clauses 9 and 10.
Then I come to the third section. There are some of us who take the view that it will not be necessary to put up prices if we reorganise the industry. Therefore the Government come to the question of amalgamation, which is the method, in our judgment, of reconstruction, which will have the effect of saving overhead charges and enabling us to meet the cost of the curtailment of hours without imposing any burdens upon the community. That seems to be the logical way to deal with this problem. First, let the Committee decide whether it is going to put fresh burdens upon the mines by the curtailment of hours; secondly, let it consider how this is to be met. Can it be met without putting up the burden upon the consumer? That is where the new Clauses of the Government come in. If after the Committee has discussed that it is still felt that there is a burden left that will not be adequately met, at any rate for a couple of years, or whatever the time limit of the Government may be—

Mr. GRAHAM: Three years.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If at the end of discussions upon amalgamation it is felt by the Committee that there is still a burden of obligation which cannot be met for three years, without some other provision being made, then we are willing to consider that fairly and in a helpful spirit, but I certainly cannot accept the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to quota. I have a very strong
feeling in regard to that, but it is premature to discuss it, and it would be out of order. Even if it were not out of order, I should have thought that this is not the stage at which we can discuss it. It would make further discussion very difficult if we were to anticipate that discussion at this stage. It would be very much better that that discussion should be postponed with a view to seeing whether something cannot be arranged which will enable the Government to get the Bill through as an agreed Bill. I do not despair of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen even on this side of the House. It is obviously to the advantage of industry that we should get an agreed Bill, if we can; it is to the advantage of the mineowners, the miners and the general community.
I cannot see why there should be so much deprecation of a private discussion on this matter. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade did come to see me once, but I saw him many more times under certain conditions. I will not say that he dictated them, but he invited me. He paid the deference which is due to age and infirmity by meeting my convenience upon one occasion. This is regarded as a sin, but it will be forgiven him in this world and certainly in the next that he should have done so. I am very much obliged to him for his courtesy in meeting me on that one occasion. If there is no more serious argument against that course than that he extended courtesy to me I hope that we shall get on with business. Logically, the method suggested is the right one. Let there be first of all, Supply. What burdens are you going to incur?
Secondly, there comes Ways and Means. How are you going to meet that Supply? Thirdly, let us see whether we can meet it without putting any burden on the community, by cutting down overhead charges and simplifying reorganisation. If, after we have done that, there is something left, then let us proceed to discuss the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, especially in view of the time limit of three years, and find out whether it is necessary that something should be done and if so, what, to meet the remnants, during that limited period, of the burden that is to be cast upon the mines. That is the spirit in which we embark
upon this question, and I trust that the Committee will take that very reasonable view.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The right hon. Gentleman has entirely misconceived the argument which my right hon. Friend has presented to the House. The argument of my right hon. Friend was that it was unusual to ask us to consider new Clauses and to adopt new procedure of which the Government has given us only 12 hours' notice. It is true that there was a Notice of Motion upon the Order Paper, which has been moved to-day by the President of the Board of Trade, but it was not in the name of the Government. We all know that under the ordinary procedure, if an Amendment or a Motion is put down to which the Government propose to agree, and they wish to give the usual notice to the House, the right hon. Gentleman could have gone the next day to the Table and added his name to the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at the foot of the Motion. Then we should have been provided with three weeks' notice that the President of the Board of Trade had made an agreement and that he was proposing to adopt the Motion.
Why did he not do it? He did not do it because until last night he had no intention of agreeing to it. He was negotiating, apparently, and we make no complaint, up to the last moment, and even now we do not know the terms of the negotiations. They are to be put on the Order Paper. It certainly was not until last night that the decision was taken by the right hon. Gentleman to adopt this proposal. If he did, in fact, take that decision sooner than he ought in convenience to himself and courtesy to the House to have let us know, because we should have been prepared, if we had had that proposal before us, to put our amendments on the Paper and to debate this on its merits. What did the right hon. Gentleman do? I must take the Committee back to what he said on the Second Reading. The whole case of the right hon. Gentleman as presented to the House was that Part I was the key and kernel of this Bill, and the Prime Minister in winding up the Debate endorsed that view. The President of the Board of Trade, as his justification for
Part I, said that unless Part I was passed quickly you could not justify the passing of Part II. In the coarse of the Debate the question of amalgamation was raised by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs and other speakers. It was treated as something entirely subsidiary to the main purpose of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade said that he was going to have an inquiry. He thought he had the power to have it, and if not that he could put it into this Bill or into another Bill.
What happened? The President of the Board of Trade considered the position with regard to these new Clauses, which we are asked to consider at once, and he put these new Clauses, subsidiary Clauses as he described them on the Second Reading, on the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman gave us very ample notice of the new Clauses he proposes to move at the end of the Bill. I make no complaint of that. We have put down some small amendments to them, but we should wish to consider them and others with a great deal more criticism when we reach them at the end of the Bill. He leaves the House under the impression that he rejects the proposal of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs; and that the new Clauses on the Paper will be taken when we come to them in the ordinary course. Negotiations take place. The Committee does not in the least know what this agreement is, or how the new Clauses are going to be modified as a result of this agreement. It does not know how Part I is going to be modified as a result of the agreement. There is no Amendment down in the name of the President of the Board of Trade nor in the name of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. All we are told is that there have been negotiations, that there is an agreement. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs told us the other day that needs must when two drive. Apparently needs must when one drives.
I am not sure that the President of the Board of Trade has got a good deal. What has he done? He has capitulated. He says, "I take your Clauses, and then Part I can come later on." If he was a better business man, or a, more astute dealer, I think he could have got a firm contract as to the Amendments to Part I and the Clauses which form the subject
of the agreement. How he negotiates is a matter for himself. What is important for the Committee is the new plan of the Government. That is what we are entitled to know. The deal is not simply on the basis that the new Clauses standing in the name of the right hon. Member are all that are to go through. Presumably, the new Clauses are to be amended. Presumably, Part I is either to go or is to be drastically amended. There is a difference of opinion. The President of the Board of Trade said that the Government attach the utmost importance to Part I, and that substantially in its present form it is essential. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs says he is a bitter opponent of the quota system, and reserves to himself rights under Part I. Where do we stand? Where does the Government stand? We are entitled to ask the Government at this, stage to move to report Progress, and give the Committee proper notice of the new Clauses which it is to be asked to consider as a result of this deal at party headquarters. We have a right to know the new Clauses that are going to be put down, and the Amendments to Part I, the essential part, that are going to be put down.
The President of the Board of Trade always treats the Committee with courtesy. He presented his Bill in great detail, and explained it at great length and with great ability. He gave us ample notice of the Committee stage and was good enough to answer a number of questions I put to him. That is very different from the way in which we are now to be treated. If he wishes to make any progress with his Bill—[Interruption]—he is much more likely—and he has been in the House longer than some of those who have interrupted—to make progress with the Bill if he treats the Committee in a reasonable manner and gives us reasonable notice. Therefore, I ask him to move to report Progress now and put on the Order Paper the new clauses which he will invite us to discuss and the recast of Part I, which is in some way to be recast, as a result of this deal. If he does not do that the House will quite plainly enter upon a discussion not only without notice but absolutely in the dark as to the plans of the Government. I think the Motion ought to be accepted in order that we may know
the latest proposals of the Government. The proposal is not to postpone the whole of the Bill until the new clauses have been considered, but a proposal to postpone Part I, the essential part, until the new clauses are considered, and we are asked to go forward and discuss Part II which deals with hours before we have had any discussion on Part I. That is absolutely impossible, and I submit it is impossible not merely on my own authority but on the very arguments which the President of the Board of Trade himself, and the Prime Minister, advanced to the House on Second Reading. When the President of the Board of Trade was discussing the possibilities of amalgamation and the need for dealing with Part I at once, he said:
We were pledged to restore the seven hours' day at the earliest opportunity and we offer part of that pledge this afternoon. I make no apology whatever for doing that together with a scheme of co-ordination, because they are bound up together. Only a fool would submit that they are not all bound up together. You cannot separate one from another in an industry like this. [Interruption.]—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1270, Vol. 233.]
I am glad hon. Members opposite support my argument. My proposition is that if you are going to postpone any part of this Bill until you have dealt with some new clauses which we have not yet seen, you cannot merely postpone Part I but you must postpone Part II as well. Then we had the intervention of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in a most eloquent speech. He made an appeal to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister, having had plenty of time to consider it—a day in between—speaking on the second day endorsed the importance of going on with Part I. He said a good deal about amalgamation. He said it was absurd—I am paraphrasing his words, but I think quite correctly—to suppose that you could get amalgamation through in time to make the change in this industry which was necessary if you are to shorten hours under Part II. The Prime Minister said:
We see that Part II is going to reduce the hours of labour, and we are preparing the trade to enable it to stand the expense of the reduction of hours of labour. The expense can be stood, not by subsidies, but by so enabling the trade to get economic prices that wages can come out of the proceeds of those economic prices. There is
no reason whatever for any reduction of wages when the shift is reduced to 7½ hours, and Part I provides the wherewithal for that to be done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1771, Vol. 233.]
Speaking on amalgamation, he said:
No one who has studied the time required for the completion of amalgamation really honestly, either to himself or this House, would say that amalgamation and the economies resulting from it can be reaped in time to enable the trade to readjust itself when the Eight Hours day has ceased to exist."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1929; col. 1765, Vol. 233.]
That was the considered judgment of the President of the Board of Trade when he introduced the Bill, and of the Prime Minister when he wound up the Debate on the Second Reading. Unless they have not only abdicated the function of leadership to the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, but also the whole of their judgment and their reconsidered judgment, we have a right to say that if the Debate on Part I is postponed then the Debate on Part II must certainly be postponed. Whatever they have abdicated they have not abdicated their duty to this Committee, which is to give us proper notice of the procedure they intend to adopt and of any plans they intend to lay before the Committee.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: We have heard a good deal about the Government's position and about one section of the Opposition or another, but we have not heard anything so far with regard to the position of the coal trade itself or the difficulties that those who have the responsibilities of management of the industry are put into by these continual changes and uncertainties. It was last July that the right hon. Gentleman first stated that he was going to bring in and enforce—I think he almost said that he would stand or fall by it—a compulsory marketing scheme. We have now reached the month of February, and the uncertainty as to what is to be in that marketing scheme or in this Bill as a whole is greater than ever it was since last July. The President of the Board of Trade ought to realise the difficulties and the dangers that ensue from these delays. If people do not know under what scheme they are going to work, they are not able reasonably to make their arrangements for the future. The exporting agents and factors are having the greatest possible difficulty in knowing what to do. What
is more, the right hon. Gentleman will find, as time goes on, that more and more of the value of Part I of the Bill will be gone, because people are taking advantage of this delay and uncertainty to make contracts into the distant future.
The right hon. Gentleman may say that that is a very foolish thing to do, but the salesman is up against a very serious problem when he has to answer the question, "Will you make a contract with me for a couple of years ahead, or will you loose my business for ever"? That is what the delay is doing. The coal trade is entitled to know the Government's mind on Part I. It was fairly certain what would be in Parts II and III. There are to be amalgamation Schemes. There may be doubt, but that does not affect the immediate selling position so seriously. Part I is the Part in regard to which the uncertainty is the greatest, and it is the Part on which we should know the Government's mind as early as possible; it is the crux of the whole thing. If the Government and the Liberal party really desire to do a further injury to this trade and to make recovery more difficult, they will still further postpone re-consideration of Part I.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Surely we are going to have an answer from the Government to the reasonable request and protest which have been made from this side? The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) spoke in the sense that it might be an advantage if ultimately this Bill, now so much in dispute, emerged from the House of Commons as an agreed Bill to which all parties had made their contribution. Whether that possibility can ever be realised we do not know, but surely the Government, by taking the course that they are taking to-day, are placing a great and perhaps a fatal obstacle in the path of any general co-operation of the House. We make no complaint, and the Leader of the Opposition made no complaint, of the colloquies and discussions that have taken place between the Government and the Liberal party. People are perfectly free to discuss political action together, and to discuss the details of legislation together when they wish, but there are other questions at issue besides the relations between the Labour party and the Liberal party. There are questions affecting the rights
of the House of Commons. After all, those who sit on these benches have some rights. They are far more numerous than those who sit on the Liberal benches, and they have at least a right to have accorded to them the ordinary consideration which is customary in the transaction of public business.
What is the point which is made by the Leader of the Opposition? Until this morning we had no reason to believe that the Government were going to adopt and submit to or acquiesce in the Amendments of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon. The right hon. Gentleman said that those Amendments had been on the Paper for three weeks. We all have a great interest in his exceptional activities in this Parliament, but, after all, even taking the most favourable view of those exertions, an Amendment that stands in his name or that or his followers is not the same as an Amendment put down by the responsible Government of the day, which represents the largest party in the House. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself will see the fallacy of the argument that he advanced against the Leader of the Opposition, that we have no ground of complaint and that no substantial difference had been made when, instead of his name being behind his Amendment, it is put forward on the authority of the Government.
I am assured that the bringing on of Part II of the Bill at this moment unexpectedly, and the withdrawal of Part I, mean that hon. Members on this side of the House have not had an opportunity of preparing and placing on the Paper their Amendments to Part II. For doing that they are entitled to a reasonable time. No long delay is necessary. There is no need to make a serious interruption of Government business. But for the ordinary and practical reasons of Debate there should be at least a single day's interlude, after so decisive a change by the Government, before we are asked to embark on the discussion of Part II. To come down, as a result of what I might call a side deal with one section of the House, and to alter the whole course of Government business, to confront us with the discussion of matters which no one who is not in the secrets of the Government or
of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs had contemplated would be a subject for Debate to-day—to ask us to do that is grossly unfair. It is more than unfair; it is unwise, because the Government are not themselves in so strong a position numerically in this House or in any other way that they can afford to ride rough-shod over the wishes and feelings of a very large number of Gentlemen sitting in this House.
We have a right to proper treatment. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs should be so very inconsiderate to those who, like himself, sit on this side of the House. He may have fixed up some arrangement satisfactorily with the Government. He has, perhaps, compelled them to adopt the proposals which he has put forward. He has made them bend to his will. He has made them go to Canossa. He has made the Government, as the Foreign Secretary said on a previous occasion, "stand on the mat" and await admission. I can quite understand his being gratified. But surely in the moment of triumph, in the moment of satisfaction and glory, he might lnd some consideration for others who at any rate voted in the same Lobby as him the other evening. As far as this Bill is concerned, hitherto there has been virtual agreement and co-operation between the non-Socialist parties in the House. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled, for reasons of his own, to come to some accommodation with the Government, but in embracing a new ally there is no need to spurn those with whom he has previously walked into the Lobby.
After all the right hon. Gentleman frequently talks to us about the interests of small parties in the House. He frequently addresses the Chair and on occasions speaks of how the Speaker and the chairman of Committees are the guardians of the rights of minorities in this House. In this matter why should he co-operate with the Government to secure unfair treatment of a party almost as large as the Government party? Surely he can deliver the goods to the Government under any arrangement that he has made without at the same time trampling on the fair procedure of the House of Commons and treating in a callous and uncivil manner
other Members and parties who have been invited to take part in the discussion of this Bill.
I am sure that if the Government do not treat us fairly in this matter they will not accelerate their business. There are means and methods by which Government business and the progress of complicated Bills can be made much more rapid. But this method, according to all the experience I have had of the House, is most calculated to prolong and exacerbate our Debates. I am going to ask the Government not to sit still like stocks and stones and refuse to make no answer to any kind of appeal which is made to them. I ask them to give us a reasonable opportunity to consider the new situation created by the side-slipping of Part I, so that we can address ourselves to Part II with proper and reasonable Parliamentary notice. In that case I am sure that the loss of a single day will not mean the loss of time in the carrying forward of legislation. But if the Government treat us with scorn and contempt because they have made an arrangement, a very fleeting and precarious arrangement, with their political associates of the moment who at other times are then-political foes—if they think that because of that they can afford to disdain us and disdain those who wish to be contributory parties to this legislation, they will render their course of Parliamentary business infinitely troublesome and prolonged.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. MAXTON: I am sure it must have been regrettable to every constitutionalist in this House to hear two Members of His Majesty's Privy Council in succession, presumably officially on behalf of the Conservative party, make threats to obstruct the business of the House. That, surely, is a matter for great regret to all of us who love to see things proceeding in an orderly fashion. When it is done in the name of protecting the rights of the House of Commons it seems rather surprising to those of us who heard an hon. and gallant Member, speaking for the Opposition and winding up the Unemployment Insurance Bill debate, threaten us with the powers of the House of Lords; and when yesterday we had the further experience of the Conservative party using the convention at
the other end of the building to set at naught all the careful consideration that this House had given to that Bill. To appeal to us now on the ground that, in some way, the rights of the House of Commons are being interfered with, because the Tory party have not been able to think out their Amendments in view of the new-situation seems to me very childish indeed. I have known occasions when organisations less powerful than the Conservative party, would have put in all the necessary Amendments to a Bill of this description in the time in which we have been debating this Motion.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: We are asking to see the Government Amendments. The Government have done a deal, and have a new plan, and we are asking to see the new plan.

Mr. MAXTON: I think that on this Bill the situation will change from hour to hour. I do not see why the Conservative party should be jealous because the Liberal Government—[Laughter.]—I am afraid that was not very intelligent anticipation—because the Liberal party have come to the aid of the Government to-day. They know that they themselves on several occasions have come to the aid of the Government, and, having regard to their anxiety to avoid a General Election, I have not the faintest doubt that the Conservative party will come to the support of the Government again. If this were a new topic there would be some reason why the Conservatives should ask for time, but this topic has been with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) practically ever since he came into public life. He has been a responsible; Minister in nearly every Government which has tried to grapple with this question and the result to-day in the condition of the coalfields is a monument to his life's activities. He looks to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) but at least that right hon. Gentleman is excused from the last 4½ years' operations in this matter. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about this proposal being sprung upon the public, may I remind him that the most disastrous thing done in connection with the coal mining industry in this country, since I became interested in politics, was the disastrous
act of the last Conservative Government when they broke off negotiations with the responsible trade union leaders of this country and when on a certain night at midnight—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that does not arise on the Motion to report Progress.

Mr. MAXTON: I am trying to argue against the Motion to report Progress and against the point made by the right hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons is not being treated with proper courtesy in this matter. I want to ask to what extent was the House of Commons taken into the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when they were conducting their negotiations in Downing Street on the eve of the General Strike?

The CHAIRMAN: That would have been a proper question to ask at that time.

Mr. MAXTON: I accept your statement of policy, Sir, but I am afraid your memory is wrong, or you would remember that I did ask it, and if I had got a satisfactory answer it would be unnecssary for me to ask it now. One can only regret this Motion, and the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, as being obstructive. Those speeches are in pursuance of the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite of laissez faire as far as coal is concerned. They are satisfied that the only way in which the coal industry can struggle back to prosperity is on the basis of long hours and starvation wages for the miners. That was their policy while they were in office, and we may take it that they consistently pursue that policy still. I hope the Government will resist even the request for an explanation which no hon. Members opposite really require.

Colonel LANE FOX: I am sure the House has welcomed the intervention of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) in the new role of a defender of the Government. But however great his influence may be in the party opposite, I think the time has arrived when the Leader of the House ought to be here to justify and defend the extraordinary course which the Government are taking. What is the position? An Amendment in
the name of certain hon. Members below the Gangway was standing on the Paper for a great many days, and the Government had given no sign of accepting it. We all knew that there were negotiations going on and that very interesting things were happening behind the scenes, but not until the very last moment are we informed that the negotiations are finished, that a deal has been completed and that the Government have given way to the hon. Members below the Gangway. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) used a most extraordinary argument. He tried to justify this course on the ground of expediency. He said it was necessary first to make sure that the obligation which Part I of the Bill is intended to pay for was incurred. Surely a reasonable man in ordinary business before he incurs a debt makes arrangements to pay for it first.
We have been told in previous discussions that Part I is the means by which the Government hope to liquidate the enormous and dangerous responsibility for loss on the industry which they are incurring. We know the great risks which the Government are taking by reducing hours and increasing wages at this time when the industry is just struggling out of a very difficult period. We know that the Government are taking a great responsibility and that the result of Part II of the Bill may be—we all hope it will not be—the closing of pits, that unemployment in the industry may become rampant and that we may have what is, perhaps, the greatest curse in the coalfields, namely, constant short time. If we are going to have a repetition of the period which we have already gone through, with pits working short time and consequently only very scanty wages being paid, it will reproduce the very worst of the conditions which we have all been deploring and which have caused so much suffering in the coalfields. I am not entitled to go into the merits of the question, but before we incur the extra obligation involved in this Bill, before we pile up this great debt and assume this great responsibility, the House ought to have an opportunity of examining the matter. We ought to have an opportunity of seeing how far the Government's plan for meeting that liability and providing against that responsibility is likely
to be effective, and of advantage to the coal industry, instead of being a serious drawback to the industry, involving the infliction of worse difficulties on the industry, on the consumers as a whole, and on the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has, in my view, done an extraordinarily bad deal, but it is his business and not mine. He must know the feeling of hon. Members below the Gangway about Part I, because that feeling has been freely expressed. If he is going to leave over Part I until the House has passed that part of the Bill which hon. Members below the Gangway are prepared to support—and which everybody knows must pass because of the alliance between the two parties—he then leaves it open to hon. Members below the Gangway afterwards to tear his improvement scheme to tatters. It means that the Government are going to be left with this great obligation, with the risk of causing unemployment, distress and suffering and are not going to be given the means which they have told us is the one means by which they hope to meet that obligation. That is a very dangerous position for the Government. I repudiate the suggestion that this course is for the convenience of the House. The Opposition who sit on these benches have been monstrously treated and when this has been done, merely on the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, great as that responsibility is, we are justified in saying that we ought to know the view of the Leader of the House. We ought to have some justification for the extraordinary steps which are being taken, steps which may have a very bad effect on the course of the Bill, which are certainly not for the convenience of the House and are contrary to the traditions of courtesy which, during the many years that I have been here, have been customary as between one side and the other.

Captain BOURNE: No one will be inclined to question that first bringing this Motion to postpone the consideration of Part I to the notice of the Committee on the same day as the Motion itself is to be taken puts us in a very difficult position. We assumed, as we were entitled to assume, that unless we got notice from the Government that they proposed to vary the ordinary procedure, we would
take the Bill in Committee in the ordinary way, commencing with Clause 1. This Bill is complicated and difficult and we have naturally concentrated our attention, in the first place, on those portions of the Bill with which we expected we should have to deal earliest. Not unnaturally we have postponed our consideration of the later portions of the Bill because, to some extent, the Amendments which we may or may not desire to move to the later Clauses will be dependent on the decision taken by the Committee on Part I. It has been admitted on all sides that Part I is the crux of the Bill. It is the Government's new scheme for dealing with the coal industry, and, until we know what is to be the decision of this Committee and the House of Commons on that part of the Bill, it is extraordinary difficult for us and even for His Majesty's Government to express any useful opinion on the remaining portions of the Bill.
As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Lane Fox) has just said, the cost of reducing hours is to be met by reconstituting the industry. We are now faced with the position that we have not the slightest idea of what is the plan of the Government to reconstitute the industry. It is true that we have certain new Clauses put down by the President of the Board of Trade, but I suggest that there would be some difficulty in dovetailing these Clauses, as at present drafted, into Part I of the Bill, unless Part I has been discussed and decided upon. We have not the slightest idea of what plan holds the field at the moment in the Government's estimation. That in itself makes it extraordinarily difficult for us to deal with this Bill. I submit that we are entitled to see the new Part I with the new Clauses in it. I presume that the Government have in their heads some very clear idea of the form which they hope Part I will ultimately receive, and I submit that it would be only following Parliamentary traditions and in keeping with the universal practice of this House, no matter what party might be in power, if that scheme were put as a whole on the Order Paper. I support this Motion to report Progress in order that the Government may have an opportunity of placing that scheme on the Order Paper for our con-
sideration, in order that we may think what, if any, Amendments we may desire to move and give notice of those Amendments in due form to the Government.
It will be within your recollection, Sir, that recently there was considerable misunderstanding on the Committee stage of a Bill and manuscript Amendments having to be moved, and if we persist in going on with the plan of the Government to-day, I cannot see any alternative but that we shall again be faced with manuscript Amendments. I am sure there is no Member who has any experience of this House who does not regard the moving of manuscript Amendments on a large and important Measure as one of the most highly undesirable things that can occur, but it will be inevitable if the Government persist in this course. If, however, they will now report Progress and give us a chance of considering their new plan, we shall have an opportunity of giving them notice of our Amendments; and it is very important that the Department should have notice. I believe myself that not only will they not lose time by adopting this proposal, but that they will actually gain time, because each side will be aware of what the other wishes, and we shall have far less time wasted through misunderstandings.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I submit that this new proposal and the refusal to adjourn the House is almost a denial of Parliamentary government, which is, after all, an exchange of views. If hon. Members take the Bill in their hands, they will find that Part I has got almost 80 Clauses and Sub-sections in it, and Part II, which is to be taken at once, has not got a quarter so many, so that the whole thing is practically to be held over—that is, the part we came to discuss today. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon, not Canossa (Mr. Lloyd George), said that he had had his Motion on the Paper for fully a fortnight. He knew his own importance, but we could not be expected to estimate that. It has turned out that he is the important person, and we ought to have realised that he has been the Government for the last fortnight, but he could not expect us to anticipate that. His position has been something like that of the Highland chief who did not get his place, and when asked why he did not take it, replied, "Wherever the McNab sits, that
is the head of the table." Wherever the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs sits, and however small his following, he is the head of the Government. We could not expect to anticipate that, and I do not think we could be blamed for it. The result is that we have no preparation.
Government is carried on by His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Opposition, the Opposition assisting the Government in arriving at a wise decision, but if they give us no notice and absolutely new Clauses are to be thrown at us without preparation, we cannot help in the government of the country, and His Majesty is deprived of half his Parliamentary power in debate. It would be monstrous if we got these new Clauses first. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said that we must first estimate what the liability is to be and then set to work, after fixing the liability, to get the money to meet it. That is the opposite of cutting your coat according to your cloth. If you have not got enough cloth, you should not start cutting your coat. The late Minister of Mines has pointed out that that was an entirely wrong procedure, and that shows what this Bill really is.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was speaking for it as if it were taxation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer estimates what the country is likely to need for the ensuing year, and then, without much consideration of the burdens to be laid upon the unfortunate industry of the country, which earns the money that provides the country with the means of carrying on, he proceeds to say, "You have to pay so much," and ultimately the day comes, to use an Oriental simile, when the back of the camel is broken. It is getting very near it in this country. There are plenty of people who are discouraged, and that is what this Bill is doing, and that is what the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said it was doing. He said, "Estimate what it will cost first, and then look for the money." That is a serious proposition, and it is a reversal of the right procedure. This is like passing a Budget—it is a coal Budget—but I submit, with all deference, that if Parliament is to get fair play, it ought to begin with the Bill in the ordinary way. First of all, see where the money is to come from, and what the
Bill is going to cost, and it may be, after the Debate has taken place upon that, that Members of the Government and of the Opposition may have to come sorrowfully to the country and say, "We cannot go on with Part II, because we find from our examination of Part I that it will be impossible, that instead of doing you a good turn, we are doing you an ill-turn." Therefore, the whole of Part II may be abandoned. In view of the gravity of the situation to the country and to the coal trade, which, let it not be forgotten, is recovering itself, I think we should not proceed to-day without further time for consideration.

Mr. SMITHERS: One or two of the previous speakers have suggested the word "obstruction" already in this Debate. I have a real affection and regard for the President of the Board of Trade, who has been kind to me on many occasions, and whenever I have asked his advice he has always given it willingly and freely. With regard to obstruction, I personally do not agree, rightly or wrongly, with many of the provisions of this Bill. Having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and therefore against its principle, I have honestly tried, at the expense of many hours' work, to put down Amendments, or to be prepared to support Amendments, to the Bill, if possible to help to make what I think is a bad Bill a little better. I ask the President of the Board of Trade, in all sincerity, to try and realise the position of a back bencher—because, after all, except for, I think, three back benchers who have spoken the Debate hitherto has been confined to the leaders of the parties, including the leader of the Highlands party—who has tried to follow the course of this Bill. The President himself said that the Bill is a difficult and intricate Bill.
Any hon. Member who has sat down, as I have, and tried, not being in the coal trade and not being an expert in coal, but having been all my life in business, to apply certain business principles to the Bill, has had to go through tremendous ups and downs in the last few days in the endeavour to know which Amendments would be taken. At first we thought the Bill would start in the ordinary way with Clause 1, and we did not take great notice of the Motion of
the Leader of the Liberal parity that the new Clauses should be taken before Clause 1. Then, only in this morning's paper, we saw the announcement that the Government were backing the Leader of the Liberal party in that Motion. Having tried to put some work in on Clause 1, I came down to the House this morning, got the new Clauses, and tried to study them. I asked a friend of mine, who has taken the Chair on many occasions where we should start, and he said we should start with the new Clauses as they are on the Paper. That is not all. When the President of the Board of Trade moved this Motion, he at the last minute altered it to read that those new Clauses should be taken which did not include Part I of the Bill or any part of it. Thus, at the last minute, the further complication was introduced, that, although the new Clauses were to be taken first, those that refer to Part I were to be left out.
The Debate proceeded, and now I understand that that is not to be the procedure, but that we are to leave out Part I and to start on Part II, which is Clause 9 of the Bill. As one who quite sincerely has no intention whatever of trying to obstruct, but who is trying to do something constructive towards this Bill, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise the very difficult position in which he has put us, not only because of the difficulty of finding out what the other two parties are going to do, but also, owing to the shortness of time, because of the difficulty of getting into touch with one's own friends with whom one has been consulting with a view to contributing something to ameliorate the Bill.
I suppose it is difficult for a back bencher to ask the Government to do anything, but would it be possible for the President of the Board of Trade, who, although he represents the Government on this occasion, is not the head of the Government, to go and see the Prime Minister—I am sorry that the Chief Whip smiles, because I ask this in all sincerity, and I am not making a party point—and ask him to let this day go? One day, more or less, cannot make all the difference to a Bill which will have such far-reaching effects as will this Bill. I have in my portfolio certain Amendments to put down as the Bill proceeds. The President of the Board of Trade told
me privately, a week or two ago, that he had been living with the Bill for six months.
We have had to try and get to grips with this Bill during the Christmas holidays, and there are many Amendments which we have ready to put down if they are necessary. I have several Amendments which I do not wish to put down if I find that they are covered as the Bill proceeds, but which I was going to put down if I thought that they were necessary in view of the debates. I have concentrated on Part I of this Bill, and it is very disturbing suddenly to be told that all our work and consideration has been thrown overboard, and that we have to switch on to Parts II and III. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to send a message to the Prime Minister to tell him that there is at least one Member—but I am certain a good many more Members—on this side, who take this view very seriously, and we should be grateful to him if he could see his way to let the Debate pass to-day and to allow us to recommence on Thursday with a definite understanding of where we commence and what we are taking. I do not know whether I am in order in referring to one of the new Clauses.

The CHAIRMAN: The new Clauses are not under discussion, and the hon. Member can only give reasons to show why Progress should or should not be reported.

Mr. SMITHERS: I want to give it as an example of the difficulties which we are in. On page 364 of the Amendment Paper there is a new Clause down in the President's name for reconstituting the Reorganisation Commission; later on there is another new Clause defining the functions, powers and duties of that Commission. I went to the Vote Office this morning to ask for to-day's Paper of Amendments to the Coal Bill. I was given a Paper beginning page 369, and that series of Amendments concluded at page 384. There I found, as far as I could compare them, the same Clause put down as on page 364, but I could find no new Clause defining the duties and constitution of the Reorganisation Commission. I made some inquiries, and then I heard that the opinion was expressed that the President had withdrawn the original Amendment on page 364, and had
put in its place the new Clause on page 384. I give that as an example of the complications not only of the Bill, but of the procedure for dealing with it, and I make a sincere appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow this Motion to be withdrawn to-day so as to give us a chance of starting on Thursday, knowing exactly where we stand, and where we shall begin with the Bill. What were the reasons that induced the Leader of the Liberal party to wish to postpone Part I of the Bill, and to go on with the other Parts first? I venture to suggest that it was because he did not want Part I discussed until the rest of the Bill had been discussed, and he wanted Part I left so that the discussions on the other Parts of the Bill would modify the provisions of Part I. Why is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs anxious that Part I should not be discussed? In that Part it says that a scheme shall be constituted to regulate the supply of coal. I maintain that that regulation has become necessary because—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. SMITHERS: I cannot, therefore, continue that point. May I return to the first point which I made? Apart from all party points, and apart from everything which we have said with reference to the Bill, I appeal to the friendly spirit of the President of the Board of Trade, and ask him to realise the real difficulties we are in. I ask him to do me the honour of considering the proposition of a back bencher to let the discussion go to-day. If he will do that, no advantage will be taken by my Friends working with me of any concession that he may make.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: This is not the first occasion on which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has rendered a grave disservice to the House of Commons, to the Government of the day, and not least of all to his own cause. We should not be surprised at that, because we know that one of those activities which endear him to the community, and particularly to the Press, is his power of seizing the fleeting opportunity. Consequently, in whatever quarter we sit, we are sure of two things—one is that he has alternative lines of
approach to a matter, and no one knows which he will choose; the other is that, having made a line of approach, he has always two lines of retreat. Hon. Members are familiar with the classic work "Alice through the Looking Glass," and they will remember how the perfect White Knight said that the whole art of riding is to have two horses, so that if you fall off one, you have another to fall on to. I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade has proved what the Americans say, "easy fruit." He has put his head into the lion's mouth in a way that is surprising in a man who comes from north of the Tweed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is not engaged in having a love feast with the President of the Board of Trade in order that they may mutually produce a Coal Bill which will be of interest to the country. There is nothing of that at all. Those hon. Members on the Back Benches opposite, who have deigned to stay during this Debate, are feeling as unpleasant about this matter as the President of the Board of Trade. He has at the last minute had to toe the line at the dictation of the leader of the Liberal party, because he thinks that he will get a certain quid pro quo for it. He is either faced with a complete loss of his Bill or else he is willing to pay a price in order to be able to retain it. I am sure that the President of the Board of Trade is not unaware of a certain incident in history connected with 30 pieces of silver; he is not entirely ignorant of the failure of certain people in this country and other countries in regard to a crime called blackmail; but I am surprised that he does not realise that this is not the least price that he will have to pay in order to achieve the support of the leader of the Liberal party. Does he not realise that he is being checked in his Bill, for he has said that Part I contains the kernel of the matter? We all believe in the efficiency, genuineness, and willingness to be reasonable that the President of the Board of Trade has always shown ever since he has been connected with the House of Commons. Therefore, he cannot altogether turn a deaf ear either to our request or to our warnings. Where are the party opposite going to be landed in this matter?
The Leader of the Liberal party having got his way in turning the Bill back to front, that Part, which hon. Members opposite regard as so important, is going to be pushed aside, and the right hon. Gentleman, if I may use the language of modern English, will be left in the consommé. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he will not only be unwilling to toe the line, as he has had to do by order of his master opposite, but he will be unwilling to treat the Opposition with discourtesy, as he has been compelled to do to-day. There is a much greater menace behind this than what we merely see in it. Hon. Members opposite have reached the conviction that what they have to do now in furthering the Government, is to sit still on their benches, knowing full well that they can rely on sufficient support here to carry their Measures through, and that it is unnecessary to check everything which the Front Bench brings forward. They regard it as impertinent if anyone on this side says anything, and consider that all we should do is to swallow the "number nines" that are being handed out by the leader of the Liberal party. We know from experience in recent Measures, and from the roar of disapproval when we began to debate the Amendments on those Bills that any kind of contribution to a debate or any Amendment brought by the Opposition is regarded as a piece of obstruction. Are you going to stultify debate in this House on that basis?
The President of the Board of Trade knows perfectly well that when an important Measure like this comes up, the Opposition are really interested, however vitally their opinions may differ from the other side, and it will be to the benefit of a great industry if we take such Bills as this and the Amendments that are put down, and, using the experience gained in previous Governments, hammer them into shape. It would be idle to say that no such thing as obstruction has ever been known, but the broad principle behind our actions is not that. It is to endeavour to see that the final product shall be in the nation's interest, instead of a matter of which, as legislators, we should be ashamed. The President of the Board of Trade and the Government are taking a grave step, not only in their own present and future interest, but in what is much more important, the standard of
legislation that this legislative body may in future have to produce for the good or ill of the country. The whole theory, the whole principle, at stake is of such importance that it behoves the President of the Board of Trade to confer with the Leader of the Government to see whether he would not be well advised, in the interests of smoothing the course of this Bill, in the interests, indeed, of the courtesy which is our right, to reconsider his attitude and to postpone the Committee stage until we really know what the sequence is going to be, and have had an opportunity of considering it preparatory to debate.

Sir NAIRNE SANDEMAN: I recall that in 1923 a very similar case to this arose, and what I am beginning to wonder is whether the Liberal party have now taken up the goad, and the patient oxen have gone into office. It looks very much like it to me. I have a feeling that the Liberal party have compelled the Government to follow at their heels. Personally, I should be very sorry indeed to follow at the heels of the Liberal party. Something very unconstitutional has been done. I am surprised that the President of the Board of Trade should come along at the last moment and throw a bomb into this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) said he thought it was better to do a thing and then find out how it was to be paid for. That was his argument for changing the-order of the Bill. I always thought it was better to know how you were going to do a thing and how you were going to pay for it before doing it, and I regard the present order of the Bill as the wise and logical order. This unholy bargain is not one that I should like very much if I were in the shoes of the President of the Board of Trade, because the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said before he sat down that there were lots of things about which he was not satisfied. I do not think the bargain is on paper, and I do not think it is cut-and-dried; but that is the affair of the Government and not of the Conservative party.
We want to know where we stand, what is the Bill, what are the new Amendments, what are the new Clauses, what is going to be done under Part I? The Government are not treating us fairly
by going on with the Debate to-night when we do not know where we stand. It is not giving the Opposition a fair chance to put down their Amendments. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to respond to what we are saying. If he cannot do it, would his satellite, in this case the Secretary for Mines, who has given up his godlike position in the trade union movement, and come down to be a minor prophet, enlighten the House? I think he could. He could tell us what is the right thing to do. At any rate, we ought to get an answer to the various questions we have asked and, if possible, some time ought to be given us to reconsider the whole position.

Mr. SKELTON: I am sure the President of the Board of Trade must feel that it is a very grave inconvenience to which the Committee have been put. Not only is it a grave thing that the order of discussion should be changed at the last moment, but I am sure he will not disagree with me when I say that the topic which we are to be called upon to discuss immediately, namely, Part II of the Bill, is of great importance and requires wise decisions. It would be out of order for me to discuss that topic now, but the points have already been canvassed in the public Press. Part II is so vital to the men, and a wise decision is so vital to the reputation of this House, that it is not fair to select it for discussion on the spur of the moment—for discussion on the spur of the moment it is. With the vast problems that lie behind the fixing of proper hours of labour in this great industry, it cannot be in the interests of the people of this country to embark upon this discussion upon the spur of the moment. In my humble judgment the original order in which this Bill was framed was a perfectly logical one. The structure of the industry was dealt with first—though in the original form it was concerned only with the marketing scheme. With the new amalagamation Clauses the right hon. Gentleman is now cutting much deeper into the structure of the industry, and, logically, the first part of the Bill for discussion should be the new amalgamation Clauses.
I am not going into their merits, but I am sure that instead of discussing first the hours of labour, instead of discussing first even the method of marketing, the
first topic logically should be the structure of the industry under the new dispensation, namely, the compulsory amalgamation proposals. Till we know what is to be the fate of the amalgamation proposals, we are not really in a position to discuss either Part I or the rest of the Bill. I have no desire to enter now into the merits of the amalgamation proposals, but I think I can say this without the risk of being out of order, that they are essentially a much more important rearrangement of the industry than anything which can be classified as marketing arrangements, because they deal with the capital position and not merely with income. The right hon. Gentleman should give the Committee a respite until Thursday, allowing us an interval of some 48 hours, and then we ought to take first things first. The first thing in order of importance originally was the marketing scheme, but that is no longer so. The first thing in order of importance is the vital structural alteration. Let us take that first. Let us thrash out the question of amalgamation; but do not let us do that until there has been a proper opportunity of considering it. [Interruption.] I cannot understand why so much mirth is produced in the Committee. The jollification of the party opposite when they are inflicting damaging blows on the industry of this country is a matter of continual amazement to me. I have watched it in three Parliaments, but I never cease to be amazed by it.
I was directing the attention of the responsible Minister, one whose logical mind and courtesy I have never had the slightest reason to doubt, to what I regard as a reasonable and a logical suggestion; and I urge him—though I am speaking only from a knowledge derived from reading in the Press, in this case that is knowledge which is not without importance—to think well before he makes us embark this evening on the discussion of Part II. That is not a subject which we ought to be called upon to take up unexpectedly. Recent activities in Geneva show the kind of issues that lie at the back of the discussion of Part II, and I say emphatically that I believe he may do a very unnecessary piece of harm to the coal industry if he insists on our entering upon that
discussion immediately. I beg him not to take that part of the Bill to-day. For my own part my criticism would be very much mitigated if the subject we were to discuss was amalgamation, but I should feel that it would be doing an injury not merely to the Conservative party and to the House of Commons but to the interest of the industry, if without adequate thought and without adequate notice we discussed the vital problems that lie behind Part II.
No one in the House better knows than the right hon. Gentleman himself the truth of what I am saying. I do not mind if his followers do simile; I never care for their smiles or their jeers. We are talking matters of high national importance, and though I do not wish to make rash prophecies, I think the right hon. Gentleman may well rue the day if he enters upon this discussion now instead of taking a subject which could be dealt with at shorter notice. I believe we could have a discussion on the principles of amalgamation. It could not be concluded to-day, but we could enter upon that discussion to-day without serious risk of damage either within or without the House. I do not believe that we can safely enter to-day upon a discussion of the question of hours. The President of the Board of Trade would be taking a most rash step if he were to insist on that, now that he has got a clear majority. It is not with any object of obstruction that I am urging him, if we are to go on with the discussion, to-day, not to take Part II of the Bill. Now that under the amalgamation proposals the whole structure of the industry is to be altered, amalgamation is the first topic which ought to be discussed. That is the topic which can be safely discussed if discussion is necessary; but the true and statesmanlike course would be to say: "The notice has been too short, and the delay of 48 hours is worth while if we can get a move informed discussion." I beg the right hon. Gentleman, now that his majority is secure, now that he has brought the Liberals to heel—to whose heel I do not attempt to explain—to postpone the discussion of Part II to-day; and if under the plans of the Government that can only be done by postponing discussion altogether, I urge again that there should be a postponement until Thursday.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. GRAHAM: When I spoke on this proposal previously I was a little handicapped by the fact that the Motion to report Progress had not then been moved, and the discussion was necessarily narrower than the Debate which is now taking place. I welcome the opportunity to try to explain briefly why the Government cannot accept the Motion to report Progress, and also to give arguments why, in all sincerity and friendship, I think the case advanced by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite is really unfounded. I do not propose to make any reference to the charges of victory and defeat in the negotiations which have taken place—very largely in the imagination of certain newspapers in this country, and also, I am afraid, of certain hon. Members in the Committee. We frankly recognise that in this matter we are in a minority in this Chamber, and from the very commencement of these discussions we have proceeded on those lines. We have recognised the economic situation and all the facts of the case are clearly before hon. Members whether they sit on the Liberal Benches or the Opposition Benches, During the proceeding of the Committee I hope to have the services of any section of opinion in the House which can make a constructive contribution towards the improvement of this Bill, or any suggestions which will tend to the recovery of this industry which has cost the State untold millions, and which will continue to be a great source of danger if some measure of order is not brought into the coal industry.
I turn now to the case which has been made out with so much courtesy by hon. Members opposite. May I say that I have always experienced at the hands of the Leader of the Opposition and from right hon. Gentlemen opposite ever since I became a Member of this Chamber the greatest courtesy. A Motion for the postponement of Part I of this Bill until after the new Clauses have been disposed of has been on the Order Paper for 10 or 14 days, and I do not think there is a single Member of the House who will dispute that fact. Prior to our acceptance of that proposal by the Government, it was open to any hon. Member to have raised the point across the Floor of the House. I agree that the Opposition are
entitled to all the rights which they have claimed. I have been in Opposition myself for more than 11 years, and therefore I should know a little about that question. The Opposition are entitled to all those rights, but I was not bound to disclose what the Government intended to do in regard to this Amendment any more than I am bound to disclose the intentions of the Government regarding any other Amendment to be found on the Order Paper. I think that is the right position to take up in regard to this matter. I think I made it clear in an earlier speech that the Government were bound to have regard to the line of criticism adopted on the Second Reading of the Bill. It does not matter a straw whether the movement for the postponement of Part I came from the Opposition side or from the Liberal Benches, and what we have done is all in the interests of accommodation.
The next question that arises is whether hon. Members opposite are prejudiced if this Motion is passed when later on the House returns to an analysis of the hours of work proposed in the Bill. I think all that is beside the mark at the present moment. The part of the Bill dealing with marketing schemes was fully dealt with during the Second Reading Debate and so was the intentions of the Government in regard to working hours. Therefore, on the broad proposition, there can be no complaint that hon. Members opposite have been prejudiced in putting down their Amendments, expressing their views, or of fully reviewing the circumstances as regards the half-hour reduction.
But even if all that were wiped out, even if all that were prejudiced by this comparatively short notice, it remains true that the hours proposal is a comparatively simple proposition, although I do not dispute that it is an important one. All the main features of the Bill are perfectly well known. There is a background to this question afforded by the legislation of 1908, 1919 and 1926, and any hon. Member can discuss this question and make out a case one way or the other so far as this proposition is concerned. Even now the hours proposal can be fully discussed, because there is no Closure, and the raising of that question rests entirely at the discretion of hon. Members opposite. I do not know what course hon. Members opposite propose to take in regard to this Bill, but they will have
all the remainder of the day to deal with the points they have raised; there is certainly sufficient material on the Order Paper to engage us all day, and the Debate can be resumed on Thursday.
The main features of the Bill have been ascertained long ago, and have become very well known since the Bill was presented some time ago. I fully recognise the friendly speeches which have been made from the opposite side of the House. Hon. Members have suggested that the new Clauses with reference to marketing schemes will be prejudiced and they seem to suggest that there is some prejudice to their rights and opportunities of debate involved in the course we have decided to take. Frankly I can assure hon. Members opposite that there is not the slightest difficulty on that point so far as the Government are concerned. In response to appeals which have been made to us from the Liberal Benches we have altered the plan of this legislation, and we have put an Amendment on the Order Paper which has been there for a period sufficient to allow Amendments to be drawn up dealing with our amalgamation proposals.
I told the House that it was the original intention of the Government, and one for which a strong case could be made out, to deal with certain matters in another Bill for which there is a majority in this House, concerning amalgamations and allied questions, and other matters connected with the organisation of coal production. That was our intention, and without going into details I admit there was a great deal to be said for that course. It is the opinion of hon. Members sitting on the Liberal Benches, and certain hon. Members sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, that our proposals with regard to amalgamations should be discussed prior to the Debate on the first part of the Bill. The Government does not propose to put new Clauses into the Bill. All the Government proposals are now on the Order Paper, and they have been there for the last 10 or 12 days. On the Second Reading I suggested that hon. Members opposite did not establish their case.
There is another point which I must make perfectly clear in order to remove all doubt on my own side of the House,
on the Liberal Benches, or in the Chamber as a whole. I think I have now made it perfectly clear that there will be ample opportunity for a further exchange of opinions in regard to any section of political opinion in relation to Part I of the Bill, and for the purpose of bringing forward arguments regarding marketing schemes. I wish to make it perfectly plain that we regard Part I and the marketing schemes, taken as a whole, as an integral part of this legislation. I tell the House perfectly frankly that if that part of the Bill is defeated in my judgment the whole Bill drops. This part of the Bill is for preventing the sale of coal at a loss or unremunerative level. To that view the Government adheres this afternoon. I trust that plain and direct statement will remove all doubts on this point.
What is the situation in the view of hon. Members on the Liberal Benches and to some extent amongst Conservative Members as well? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Llyod George) has asked us to proceed first with the Hours proposal which may involve certain charges, and also to proceed with the National Industrial Board which will deal with the question of hours and other questions arising from employment in the industry and then in the interregnum deal with the effective contribution of these alterations to the more efficient working of the industry the elimination of loss and the measure of co-ordination and arrangements that amalgamation will bring about. It is my hope that with the assistance not only of Members on the Liberal Benches, but Conservatives as well, that we shall be able to arrive at a working agreement regarding our central proposition. That may be impossible and I should deplore such a result, but I am bound to make the position of the Government perfectly clear.
What is it that we propose should be brought into being by, I should hope, the joint co-operation of the three parties in the House, or, at ill events, of two sections of the House? The desire is expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to analyse the problem raised by Part I of the Bill, and find out whether a working solution can be
effected, and I take it that there is a desire in that quarter of the House to carry Part I of the Bill. If that be not the desire, the question before us, so far from being simple, is intricate, technical and difficult. I shall have occasion to trouble the House with many speeches in the long Debates on the Bill, but I think I have said enough to be acquitted of any charge of discourtesy towards right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and they themselves have, with very great generosity, recognised that that is the last of my intentions. I have always told them and the House that this is a difficult Bill to describe, with all its technicalities. But we have got to get through it if we possibly can, because, as I shall have no difficulty in proving to the Committee, if we can bring some measure of order into this industry—and I am as anxious as anyone to protect the public interest in that process—we shall make a powerful contribution to industrial recovery in this country, taking a long view, and we shall build upon that measure of return to prosperity, slow and hesitating, difficult and halting, that is now appearing in the coalfields of this country.

Sir P. CUNUFFE-LISTER: I think the Committee will have heard with great interest, but with some considerable measure of surprise, the speech which the right hon. Gentleman has just delivered. We were all under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to the House at very short notice that we should postpone Part I for the consideration of new Clauses, and that the right hon. Gentleman was making that proposal because he had discovered that it was right, or had discovered in the course of negotiations that it was convenient to make some considerable changes in the plan which he had deployed to the House. That was plainly in the mind of everyone, and, I should have thought, in the minds of those who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman; but he has just told us that there is no sort of change whatever in the proposals which the Government seek to make to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has done a deal with the Liberal party, and I owe him an apology. I thought that in the course of that deal he had had the worst of it, but I was wrong. If it is a firm deal, he has had much the best of it. He
has got an alliance for the time being, he hopes for the duration of the Bill, with the Liberal party, not by offering to change the Bill in accordance with their desires, because he says he is making no change at all in his ideas of what the structure, and, indeed, the details of the Bill should be, and all that he has given in return for their support is a change of procedure, a change in the order in which the different parts of the Bill are to be taken. There is no change of substance at all. I asked him whether we could have before us, so that we might have full notice of them before we went into Committee, the alterations that he was going to make in his amalgamation Clause, which is so unsatisfactory to right hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He says, "You must not charge me with any discourtesy to you in not disclosing any of the alterations I am going to make in my new Clauses, because I am not going to make any alterations at all. The Clause, as I put it on the Paper three weeks ago, stands, and that is how I propose to move it, that is how I propose to carry it through the House."
I am bound to say that, if that be the right hon. Gentleman's intention, and if that be the deal that he has done, we certainly have had good notice of the particular new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to move; but, if it is not a new plan, if there is no change whatever in the proposals which he is going to ask the House to accept, why in the name of fortune are we asked to change the manner, and the method, and the stages by which we proceed with this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman had no intention, until quite lately, of making that change; otherwise I am sure he would have given us notice. He says, "You ought not to complain. I could have come down to the House to-day and, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs moved his Motion, I could have accepted it across the Floor of the House." Strictly speaking, that is within his powers, but I think he would be hard put to it to find a precedent, to find a case in which a Government had ever put itself in such a position, or had put an Opposition in such a position. The right hon. Gentleman has not sought to justify his proposal on its merits. Where are the merits of this change? I listened, as I am sure the
whole Committee did, to all that he said, and he always speaks with a clarity which leaves us in no doubt as to what is in his mind, and certainly never leaves unsaid any argument which can be advanced in support of his case; but why are we asked to make this change? Because the right hon. Gentleman has done a deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. No other argument has been advanced—

Mr. FOOT: There is no deal; the word "deal" is yours.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I will say an agreement, if the Hon. Member likes it better than the word "deal." How can the right hon. Gentleman substantiate his case on its merits? He said that Part I is the foundation of the Bill, the foundation on which the whole structure is built, and that, if it goes, the whole Bill goes. If Part I is the foundation upon which the whole structure is built, had we not better start on the foundation? It really is carrying jerry-building to excess if we are to ignore the foundations and start on the roof—a roof which was an afterthought of the right hon. Gentleman and not in his Bill. Really, the right hon. Gentleman must put forward a better argument than any that he has addressed to us if he is to convince us. I agree with him that Part I is the foundation of this Bill. I think he may well be right that without Part I you cannot have this Clause dealing with hours. If that be so, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to ask the House of Commons to consider the hours proposals, to commit themselves on the hours proposals, to pass through Committee the proposals dealing with hours, when he himself admits that, unless he gets Part I, the whole of those hours proposals will have to go by the board? That, really, is not treating the House fairly.
It was not the way in which the right hon. Gentleman meant to approach this question; it was not the way in which, after seven months' careful thought and discussion, after producing 13, 14, 15 editions of his Bill, he finally brought out the last edition and presented it to the House. He said that no one but a fool could have thought it possible to deal with hours unless Part I was dealt with. That was his considered judgment,
and I submit that he has only emphasised, in the arguments that he has addressed to the Committee to-day, the logic and the soundness of the basis on which he originally approached this question, and that he himself has been the best advocate for the Motion which has been moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
There is an additional reason why, if Part I is postponed, Part II must be postponed also. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that there is a great deal of interest in and discussion on possible alternatives, such as the question whether a 90-hour fortnight—I am not going to argue the merits of that now—is not a, really wise solution. Would it not be far wiser to allow that amount of time which would elapse if we proceeded with the foundation, in order that this 90-hour question might be thrashed out in the country by the people primarily concerned? That, surely, is a very strong reason for not rushing us into a Debate upon hours on its merits, a Debate which must be, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has said, directly linked up with Part I of the Bill. I venture to say that we could not have had a better argument in support of the Motion which we are now putting before the Committee than the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir ROBERT HORNE rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Sir R. HORNE: I promise that I shall not detain the Committee long. I should not have intervened at all in the Debate had it not been for a remark made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade in his speech to which we have just listened. He said that he hoped that even from the Conservative side of the House he would get fair consideration for this Bill. I beg him not to think that those who sit on these benches are animated either by hostility to the Bill or by a desire for any unfairness to the great industry with which we are concerned here. So far as I myself am concerned, if I may venture to interpose a personal remark, there is no industry in this country in which I have ever been so interested as the coal industry. I was born and brought up in a mining district, and I have been in close contact with the coal industry all
my life. It was my fate for three years as a Minister to have the coal problems of this country constantly before me, and there is no industry which affects this country more vitally, in which none of us can help being interested, and to which I personally am prepared to give more careful consideration, than the industry with which we are now dealing.
The position of unfairness in which a person like myself is put, who is not a member of any team, is that, having given some thought, and as impartial and unprejudiced consideration as I can, to this Bill, I have some ideas, and there are certain things that I thought of with regard to Part II, which I have not put on the Paper because there was no suggestion that the Government were going to take Part II before Part I. It is obvious, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) has said, that this Motion for a postponement of Part I has been on the Order Paper for three weeks. That is the very thing that deceived me. I thought that, if the Government were going to accept that Motion, we should have heard about it long before now. They had three weeks in which to make up their minds, and I must say that the President of the Board of Trade cannot very well disagree with the criticism that he has been pushed into this action at the very last moment. Now, recognising, as he must, that he has been subjected to duress in this matter, he ought at least to take into consideration the position in which private Members throughout the House are placed who are giving that consideration to this Bill which he desiderates. We have been appealed to both by him and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to deal with this industry as a whole House, with a desire to give it sympathetic consideration, and to reach conclusions on which we might all be agreed. We cannot do that unless we are allowed to apply our minds to the topic, and to put down on the Paper the kind of ideas that occur to us, so that the whole House may have the opportunity of seeing them and discussing them. It is on that ground, and not on any factious or partisan ground, that I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman now to reconsider the course that he is taking, and to give the House a real and genuine opportunity of considering one
of the most important Bills that has ever been before us, or can ever come before us.
We are seeking by this Bill to regulate what is the basic industry of this country, upon which the whole fortunes of the country depend. After the Napoleonic wars, this country was saved from a position of poverty, and possible bankruptcy, by the discovery of coal, and in my belief it is by coal again, and by coal alone, that we shall be saved—by the proper development of this great industry in our midst. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said the Bill was being taken out of its logical order in putting first the marketing scheme. I agree that that is an entirely erroneous view, and it may be shown to be erroneous by the Amendments which the Liberal party themselves have put down, because if there is anything at all in co-operative working in the coal industry, it depends far more upon combined marketing than upon combined production. I will not enter into that now because it is a long story, but I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the foundation of his Bill is in co-operative marketing and, though I do not at all agree with it being made compulsory, I am of the belief that much more can be done for the industry by co-operative marketing than by compulsory amalgamation for the purposes of production. I will develop that view at a later stage of the Debates. So far from being wrong in the order in which the Clauses are set out, I am of opinion that there was no reason at all in logic why the right hon. Gentleman should have given way to pressure from the Liberal party. I again beg the Committee to believe that we are as much concerned as anyone to put the coal industry on a proper foundation, and that we desire to have a proper opportunity of discussing these Clauses.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I should not have intervened if it had not been for the very persuasive manner in which the right hon. Gentleman presented his case. If it were really a fact that the discussion of Part II was being prejudiced by being begun this evening and continued on Thursday, I think the whole Committee would join in urging upon the Government a reconsideration of their attitude towards the Motion to report
Progress. But Part II deals with the question of hours alone. It consists of only a few lines and raises only two points of substance. One is whether the hours should be shortened or not. That is a point that arises on the Clauses themselves, and does not require the presentation on the Order Paper of any elaborate Amendments. The other is the question whether the restriction of hours should be by the day in all cases, or should be a collective restriction of the hours worked during the week, or during the fortnight. That is a very important point which the Committee will wish carefully to discuss. On that matter hon. Members above the Gangway have already put their Amendments on the Paper, and if at this moment we were to approach the Clause we should be able to take that matter in the form in which they themselves desire to have it discussed.

Sir R. HORNE: I know there is an Amendment down on that question, but it did not seem to me to be entirely satisfactory from my point of view.

Sir H. SAMUEL: There will be no difficulty whatever in framing Amendments. The President of the Board of Trade has stated that the discussion will almost certainly go over till Thursday. I do not think there will be any real, substantial inconvenience to the Committee on that point.

Sir R. HORNE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that finishes my proposals on the Clause.

Sir H. SAMUEL: No, but the matter will not be settled to-day, and it is possible that it might take even more than two sittings to deal with the whole question of hours, which is one of very great importance and which gives rise to, possibly, alternative views. With respect to the order in which it will be most convenient to take these various parts of the Bill and the new Clauses, if we debated first Part I we should be doing so all the time on an assumption, the assumption being that the industry will be burdened economically by a shortening of the hours in a certain fashion, so we should be guessing all the time what would be the ultimate form of the Bill. It may be that the part respecting hours may be
modified during its passage through the Committee, and that the heavy burden which some people think will be thrown on the industry may be very greatly mitigated. All the time during the many days in which we should be discussing the elaborate and difficult provisions of Part I we should not know what is the problem with which at the end we should be dealing. That is the main reason why the hours question should be taken first. All the world knows the Bill has come into existence—it has been frankly stated by the Government—because they had pledged themselves to the miners to restrict the hours, and Part I is the outcome of that promise. Surely it is better to consider the promise and its fulfilment first, and, afterwards, what should be the proper consequences following it.
There is another reason. The Government have put down Clauses dealing with amalgamation presupposing a large reorganisation of the industry. Part I now becomes a temporary expedient, and the Government propose that it should be limited in its application for three years. Is it wise to consider first what is to be a merely temporary measure and leave until afterwards what is to be the permanent reorganisation of the industry? How can we tell what form the temporary provisions should take until we have disposed of the permanent ones? There is the further reason that Part I is an exceedingly technical and complicated matter, giving rise to great differences of opinion, not only here but in the industry itself, and not only in the industry but throughout the country among other industries, and opinions are gradually being expressed by those trades and interests that are concerned with respect to the present form of Part I and the way in which they would desire it to be amended. In our view it is most desirable that there should be more time for these various expressions of opinion to be manifested and, if we approached Part I to-day none of us would be in a position to say precisely how we should like to see it amended. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench have said: "Why have not the Government put down the Amendments to which they have agreed with us with respect to the provisions of Part I?" We have not agreed to Amendments. We are still considering what form Amendments should
take. Why not? Where is the harm in it? We are only anxious to see the Bill modified and changed, by the largest measure of agreement possible, into a form which will be of most value to the industry and to the country, and it is, in our view, for all these reasons, desirable that we should now proceed with Part II and the new Clauses and, by the time the House knows precisely what shape the Bill as a whole is to take, we shall be in a better position to consider the Amendments in detail.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: I am surprised that hon. Members opposite should seek to take up so much time by trying to prevent the Opposition from expressing their views. It is very seldom indeed that I occupy the time of the House, but I can say at the start of the Committee stage that no interruption from the other side is going to stop me expressing my views. I think I am entitled to make a short reference to the speech we have just heard, I think with some amazement. The right hon. Gentleman has shown us straight away that the President of the Board of Trade was right when he was speaking of criticisms of an adverse bargain. In his last few sentences the right hon. Gentleman gave away the whole of the bargain with regard to the Socialist party. They have already managed to obtain from the Government a certain preference for their amalgamation schemes which they were urging on the Second Beading. The President of the Board of Trade told us on the Financial Resolution that it was more or less generally understood as to why these schemes were being brought in. The Prime Minister had spoken adversely of the amalgamation schemes on the Second Reading but still, under pressure from the Liberal party, the President of the Board of Trade put down certain new Clauses dealing with reorganisation by means of amalgamation.
We saw those on the Paper. We also saw the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and others had put down with regard to the postponement of Part I. The President of the Board of Trade says that in that way we had notice. He could in Committee have accepted that Motion. But he has not done so. He has put
before the Committee a different Motion. He has actually amended the Motion that was in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. In proposing it, he read to us a form of words excluding certain Clauses, but there can be no doubt whatever that the decision arrived at was hostile and was not certainly approved of by the right hon. Gentleman only a short time ago. He says the Liberal Motion should have been a warning to us that it might be accepted. All the indications that we could have were against any acceptance by the Government of the Liberal Motion. In the first place, had they had any intention it would have been more likely that they would have accepted it earlier, or would have put down some similar Motion in their own name. Apart from that, we had the indication of the order in which the Government had produced the Bill itself. That is the strongest indication we could possibly have. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) has given one or two quotations from the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Second Reading. I should like to draw attention to the second paragraph in his speech on that occasion. He said:
Very soon after we came into office on 10th June of this year, we were in consultation with representatives of the Mining Association speaking for the great bulk of colliery proprietors in this country, and the representatives of the Miners' Federation, with a view to ascertaining what steps should be taken to fulfil the pledge under which this Government lay with the miners, and, at the same time, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated, to provide for the better organisation of this industry in Great Britain. During the intervening months, with the exception of our period at The Hague, there has hardly been a week in which we have not been engaged in these discussions, and, as a result of prolonged and careful examination of many aspects of the problem, this Bill, of which I now move the Second Reading, is submitted for the acceptance of the House of Commons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th December, 1929; col. 1245. Vol. 233.]
That is after we had had some six or seven months' careful consideration, discussion with the coalowners and consultation with the Miners' Federation. They went carefully into this before presenting their Bill. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that the two things were bound to go together—the decrease in hours and the marketing schemes and the reorganisation. They could not be
separated. He realised that throughout and in framing his Bill we are justified in assuming that he put what he considered to be the most important question first, and that was as to how any shortening of hours was going to be paid for. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen said the main question on Clause 9 is whether the hours should be shortened or not. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has indicated to us on several occasions that the whole crux of the question is, that they should come to some agreement with the coalowners by which that shortening of hours—only half the promise which they made during the election—should not result in a lessening of wages. Therefore, he has realised in all these negotiations that the keystone of the whole thing is the reorganisation, the marketing schemes which he put into Part I of his Bill.
I would like to look at the arrangement which has been made and see whether my right hon. Friend was not right in saying that the President of the Board of Trade has been jockeyed. I think that, to a large extent, he has been jockeyed by the Liberal party. This is going to happen. They are seeking to postpone Part I of the Bill, take the other Clauses and then come on with the new Clauses with regard to amalgamations, and if, with the assistance of the Liberal party, these new Clauses for amalgamations are carried, the President of the Board of Trade can have no doubt whatever that the Liberal party are going to do their very best to kill Part I of the Bill which will then come along.
The position of the Conservative party has been made perfectly clear. We are against the whole of the Bill. [An HON MEMBER: "And we know it!"] We have said so before and we say so now. We have, by placing Amendments on the Order Paper, shown our intention, if the Bill is to go through, of trying to make it a little less pernicious than it is at the present time. We are trying to make it a little less bad. On the other hand, I certainly hope that the whole of the Conservative party, having done what they can to improve it, though even when it has been improved it cannot be good enough, will be in a position to vote against the Government on prac-
tically every Clause of this Bill. What will be the position when the Liberals reach Part I? They will undoubtedly, in jockeying for position, hope, having got their amalgamations in combination with the Government, to do their level best to kill Part I, with, no doubt, the assistance of the Conservative party. Surely that does not look such a good bargain as the President of the Board of Trade seems to think.
I would like to say a few words with regard to the actual reasons quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen for discussing the hours' question. Quite apart from the short notice which we have received, I would put it to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Committee that it would be far better that the decision on the question of hours should be taken in its normal place in the Bill which in the ordinary course of events would be in another two or three weeks, of Parliamentary time. Opinion is forming in the country with regard to the spreading of hours over the fortnight or over the week. Opinion is certainly progressing not only in the industrial areas and among people outside the coal industry, but it is certainly progressing very considerably amongst the miners themselves. [HON. GENTLEMEN: "No!"] Hon. Gentlemen may say "No." They are speaking, perhaps for their own districts, or a they know them. I also know that in many parts of the country, even in Northumberland and Durham, they would rather like to have a Saturday off in order to be able to go to a football match. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I quite agree. I think that it is an extremely reasonable and proper idea on their part. I am convinced that a great many districts would welcome this proposal. I am not speaking about those who express opinions said to be held by the miners, but about the miners themselves. If you could go and talk with them in their districts you would find that they would prefer often to work the longer hours—the eight hours day—provided—

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. R. RICHARDSON rose—

Commodore KING: I shall be pleased if the hon. Gentleman will follow me.

Mr. E. EDWARDS: On a point of Order. Can we have a quotation from any representative of the miners?[Interruption]. What authority has the speaker—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): That is not a point of Order.

Mr. BECKETT: On that point of Order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No point of Order has been raised yet.

Mr. MAXTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to go into the merits of the Tory Amendments to the Bill while we are discussing a Motion to report Progress?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a point of Order. I am rather afraid the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is transgressing beyond the Motion which is before the Committee. He cannot discuss Amendments on this Motion.

Commodore KING: I assure you that I will do my best to keep within your ruling. I did not think that I had transgressed, because I was merely replying to interjections—[Interruption]—I was forced into that by an interjection. I thought that I should be in order in view of the interjection which has been made asking for authority for what I had already said. If hon. Members want the information I would refer them to the recent International Industrial Conference at Geneva dealing with the hours, and so on, of miners. If anyone would like to go into that question—

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman first of all to argue against your ruling and then to proceed to reply—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Interjections do sometimes tempt hon. Members to go astray. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Member will not discuss the merits or demerits of the Bill which are outside this Motion.

Commodore KING: I was replying to the advisability, in my view, of having the question of hours in mines left in its proper place in the Bill because of the growing opinion in the country. I maintain that there is a growing opinion in
the country with regard to the spreading of hours. That is how I came to it, and I maintain that that is a perfectly legitimate argument and in order on the Motion which we are now discussing. There are one or two things which I should like to say with regard to the actual Motion. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had really taken over, or rather accepted, the Motion which had been put down by the Liberals. I would like him to say which, if any, of the Clauses to which he was alluding refer to Part I of the Bill. It is very important to say, when he is seeking to put Part I one one side and behind the new Clauses, what Clauses he really intends to discuss. I find it difficult to get any actual reference to it, but we get reference by inference. I do not know whether he is intending to make use of the words which were in the terms of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Committee:
To further the reorganisation of the coal mining industry with a view to facilitating the production and supply and sale of coal by owners of coal mines.
These are entirely the functions which are being dealt with in Clause 1, and yet that is dealt with in the general functions of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission under one of these new Clauses. We are entitled to know what effect this is going to have on this Commission. I maintain that the President of the Board of Trade has entirely failed to give us any information as to what is actually in his mind or in the mind of the Government. All that we know is, that at very short notice they have changed the whole of their plans and the whole of their tactics, and we are only left to guess what are the reasons. I would point out that the Motion which we have moved was replied to only after a long delay. The Leader of the Opposition spoke at about ten minutes to four, and it was six o'clock before the President of the Board of Trade thought it right to reply to his criticism. I would like to remind the Committee that not only have we the leaders of the parties. We also have a Leader of the House whose duty it is to look after the rights and privileges of the Members of the House. The Leader of the House throughout the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was sitting next but one to the President of the Board of Trade and after my right
hon. Friend had sat down, the Leader of the House, instead of replying, as would have been ordinary courtesy and the right thing for him to have done, went out. Of course, we came to the conclusion, quite naturally, that he had gone to try to find the Leader of the Liberal party, so that he might make some further arrangement and get permission to come to some terms. I do urge the Government to accept this Motion and to allow us to see how their Clauses and Amendments work in connection with Part I.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy)

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Did not the President of the Board of Trade promise that he would not move the Closure?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a question to be addressed to the right hon. Gentleman himself and not to the Chair.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 294; Noes, 181.

Division No. 136.]
AYES.
[7.2 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Devlin, Joseph
Hopkin, Daniel


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dickson, T.
Horrabin, J. F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Dukes, C.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Alpass, J. H.
Duncan, Charles
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Ammon, Charles George
Ede, James Chuter
Isaacs, George


Angell, Norman.
Edge, Sir William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Arnott, John
Edmunds, J. E.
Johnston, Thomas


Aske, Sir Robert
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Ayles, Walter
Egan, W. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Elmley, Viscount
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
England, Colonel A.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Barnes, Alfred John
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Batey, Joseph
Foot, Isaac
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Freeman, Peter
Kelly, W. T.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kennedy, Thomas


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Motion)


Benson, G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawrence, Susan


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Birkett, W. Norman
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lawson, John James


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gill, T. H.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bowen, J. W.
Gillett, George M.
Leach, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Glassey, A. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gossling, A. G.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bromfield, William
Gould, F.
Lees, J.


Bromley, J.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brooke, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Brothers, M.
Gray, Milner
Logan, David Gilbert


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Longbottom, A. W.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Longden, F.


Burgess, F. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lowth, Thomas


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McElwee, A.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Harbison, T. J.
McEntee, V. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Harbord, A.
McKinlay, A.


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, George D.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Church, Major A. G.
Harris, Percy A.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Clarke, J. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayday, Arthur
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Mansfield, W.


Cove, William G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
March, S.


Daggar, George
Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Marcus, M.


Dallas, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Markham, S. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Herriotts, J.
Mathers, George


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Matters, L. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hoffman, P. C.
Maxton, James


Melville, Sir James
Ritson, J.
Sullivan, J.


Messer, Fred
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Millar, J. D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Mills, J. E.
Rothschild, J. de
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Milner, J.
Rowson, Guy
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Montague, Frederick
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Thurtle, Ernest


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Tinker, John Joseph


Morley, Ralph
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Toole, Joseph


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Tout, W. J.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Townend, A. E.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sanders, W. S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sandham, E.
Turner, B.


Mort, D. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Vaughan, D. J.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Scrymgeour, E.
Viant, S. P.


Muff, G.
Scurr, John
Walker, J.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Sexton, James
Wallace, H. W.


Murnin, Hugh
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Naylor, T. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Oldfield, J. R.
Shield, George William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Palin, John Henry
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
West, F. R.


Palmer, E. T.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Westwood, Joseph


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Sinkinson, George
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Perry, S. F.
Sitch, Charles H.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Price, M. P.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pybus, Percy John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wise, E. F.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sorensen, R.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Richards, R.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Strauss, G. R.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Albery, Irving James
Colville, Major D. J.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hammersley, S. S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Haslam, Henry C.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Balniel, Lord
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Beaumont, M. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Hurd, Percy A.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Bracken, B.
Ferguson, Sir John
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Fermoy, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred


Briscoe, Richard George
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Buckingham, Sir H
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Butler, R. A.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Carver, Major W. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Long, Major Eric


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lymington, Viscount


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gower, Sir Robert
Macquisten, F. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Meller, R. J.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd




Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Train, J.


Mond, Hon. Henry
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut. Colonel E. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Salmon, Major I.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Muirhead, A. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Savery, S. S.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wells, Sydney R.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kine'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


Penny, Sir George
Smithers, Waldron
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Withers, Sir John James


Power, Sir John Cecil
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, Cast)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Ramsbotham, H.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Remer, John R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton.)



Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Thomson, Sir F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Major the Marquess of Titchfield




and Captain Margesson.

Question put accordingly, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 296.

Division No. 137.]
AYES.
[7.15 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Alexander, Sir Wm, (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Long, Major Eric


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lymington, Viscount


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Ferguson, Sir John
Marjoribanks, E. C.


Balniel, Lord
Fermoy, Lord
Meller, R. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fielden, E. B.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beaumont, M. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mond, Hon. Henry


Berry, Sir George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Muirhead, A. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Gower, Sir Robert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bracken, B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Brass, Captain Sir William
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Briscoe, Richard George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Butler, R. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Colville, Major D. J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Skelton, A. N.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Davidson, Rt. Hen. J. (Hertford)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Thomson, Sir F.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J.


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Train, J.
Wells, Sydney R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir George Penny and Major the


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Withers, Sir John James
Marquess of Titchfield.


Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Freeman, Peter
Longbottom, A. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longden, F.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lowth, Thomas


Alpass, J. H.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lunn, William


Amman, Charles George
Gibbins, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Angell, Norman
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Arnott, John
Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Aske, Sir Robert
Gillett, George M.
McElwee, A.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.


Ayles, Walter
Gossling, A. G.
McKinlay, A.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gould, F.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Barnes, Alfred John
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Batey, Joseph
Gray, Milner
McShane, John James


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mansfield, W.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
March, S.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Groves, Thomas E.
Marcus, M.


Benson, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Markham, S. F.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marley, J.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George


Birkett, W. Norman
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Matters, L. W.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Maxton, James


Bowen, J. W.
Harbison, T. J.
Melville, Sir James


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Harbord, A.
Messer, Fred


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hardie, George D.
Middleton, G.


Bromfield, William
Harris, Percy A.
Millar, J. D.


Bromley, J.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mills, J. E.


Brooke, W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, J.


Brothers, M.
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hayday, Arthur
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hayes, John Henry
Morley, Ralph


Burgess, F. G.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Herriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.


Cameron, A. G.
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Cape, Thomas
Hoffman, P. C.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hopkin, Daniel
Muff, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Horrabin, J. F.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Chater, Daniel
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh


Church, Major A. G.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Naylor, T. E.


Clarke, J. S.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Isaacs, George
Oldfield, J. R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Compton, Joseph
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cove, William G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palin, John Henry.


Daggar, George
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Palmer, E. T.


Dallas, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Dalton, Hugh
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Perry, S. F.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Devlin, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Dickson, T.
Kennedy, Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Potts, John S.


Dukes, C.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Price, M. P.


Duncan, Charles
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Pybus, Percy John


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrence, Susan
Quibell, D. J. K.


Edge, Sir William
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Edmunds, J. E.
Lawson, John James
Rathbone, Eleanor


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Leach, W.
Richards, R.


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Elmley, Viscount
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


England, Colonel A.
Lees, J.
Ritson, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Foot, Isaac,
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Romeril, H. G.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Logan, David Gilbert
Rosbotham, D. S. T.




Rothschild, J. de
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wallace, H. W.


Rowson, Guy
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Snell, Harry
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watkins, F. C.


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Sanders, W. S.
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Sandham, E.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
West, F. R.


Sawyer, G. F.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Westwood, Joseph


Scrymgeour, E.
Strauss, G. R.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Scurr, John
Sullivan, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Sexton, James
Sutton, J. E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sherwood, G. H.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York. Don valley)


Shield, George William
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Shillaker, J. F.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Shinwell, E.
Tinker, John Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Toole, Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Tout, W. J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sinkinson, George
Townend, A. E.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Sitch, Charles H.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Turner, B.



Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Vaughan, D. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Viant, S. P.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Walker, J.

Original Question again proposed, "That the consideration of Part I be postponed until after the new Clauses (other than those in which Part I of the Bill or any Clause in that part is mentioned) have been disposed of."

Commodore KING: I beg to move in line 1, "to leave out the words 'Part I,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'the Clauses of the Bill'."
Now we come back to the Motion of the President of the Board of Trade. The Amendment seeks to carry out the policy which the Government have so recently adopted of postponing various parts of the Bill until a more convenient period when it suits the Liberal party to take them. What I wish to put to the Committee is this, that as the Government wish to postpone Part I, the all-important part of the Bill, until after certain new Clauses have been considered we on this side of the Committee desire to postpone the consideration of the whole Bill until the new Clauses, some of which may have an important effect on the rest of the Bill, have been taken. I said something just now with regard to the undesirability of dealing straight away with the question of hours, which is in Part II of the Bill, and which would be the first subject for discussion if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman is carried. We consider that the best way to deal with this Bill is the way in which it has been drafted and introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. That is to say, that we should progress
in the usual way, one—two—three—four. That we should take the Bill in its order and as it was when the right hon. Gentleman first introduced it. If it is really necessary to postpone Part I then we think it is undesirable to start a discussion on Part II. On the Motion to report Progress I said that question of hours is receiving very careful consideration in most parts of the country at the present time and that it would be regrettable if the Committee, owing to a change of plans, of which no notice has been given, were to come to a decision on the matter before the country and those most interested in the industry have had time to discuss it. The President of the Board of Trade will agree that the question of hours is receiving careful attention not only from the owners' side but also by the Miners' Federation. In fact, I have seen a recent statement by Mr. Cook that it might be desirable to have a 90 hour fortnight rather than a 7½ hour day.

Mr. BATEY: Put that out of your mind.

Commodore KING: I am not going into details, but I am quite entitled to point out that it is most undesirable to discuss this subject when so much thought is being given to it in the country. We may to-night, or on Thursday, come to a decision which might in a fortnight or three weeks' time be found to be contrary to the desires of the whole mining industry. That would place the Government in a very difficult position. We all
want, according to our light, to do the best thing we can for the mining industry, and it is only after more consideration than we have been able to give to it that we can come to any definite conclusion. Some 10 days or so ago the Conservative party put down two Amendments with regard to spreading the hours of labour, that is 90 hours a fortnight, or a 45-hours' week, and, therefore, we have given considerable evidence of our intentions in that matter. It may be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to come to some arrangement with the Liberal party as to how the Bill should be taken, but we must not forget the great interests of the industry. I claim that it would be a pity for us to carry on the discussion on hours until sufficient attention has been given to that matter in the country. That is all I wish to say in regard to Part II.
Had the Government shown any disposition to meet us in what we consider are very reasonable requests with regard to the Motion to report Progress; had they shown any indication of being willing to meet us, we should have indicated a willingness to carry on with Parts III and IV of the Bill, so that time should not be wasted. Then we could have gone on with the new Clauses, so that we should not have been in the impossible position in which we find ourselves of trying to discuss, with so little notice, one of the most important Clauses of the Bill. However, the President of the Board of Trade did not deem it desirable to show any softening of manner or any desire to meet the difficulties which we put forward. Therefore, we must press our point that such a question as the hours of work ought not to be considered now.
To be consistent, if we are going to postpone, at the Government's request, the keystone of the whole Bill with regard to amalgamations and reorganisations, it is only logical that we should postpone the remaining Clauses of the Bill, and come straight away to consideration of the new proposals of the Government in regard to amalgamations. We want to know something about these amalgamations. On the Second Reading Debate I was very interested in the speech of the President of the Board of Trade, and I did not consider it a bit
too long. It was a very clear statement. In that statement he occupied about four-fifths of his time in dealing with Part I, while the remainder of the time was given to hours and a very short portion of it to the remainder of the Bill. It showed the importance in his mind of Part I. If that most important part of the Bill is to be postponed, we consider that it is wrong to deal with hours of work, and also that it would be useless for us in the circumstances to go on with Part III, which deals with the Coal Mines Industrial Board. We have not, so far, put down many Amendments to that part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that this Bill has been an extraordinarily difficult Bill to deal with. We think that it is a pernicious Bill. It is drafted in such a form that it is extremely difficult to make any good out of it by amendment.
If we were to try to sit down to draft a new Bill or draft new Clauses, that would be the easier way. The right hon. Gentleman has evidently found exactly the same difficulty, because he seems to amend the Bill by putting down new Clauses. We have found that the contents of the Bill are extremely difficult to amend. The Amendments that we have put down so far have been the result of a considerable amount of study of the Bill, and much hard work. We took the Bill in the order in which it appeared upon the Paper, and the order in which the President of the Board of Trade recommended it to the House. We turned our attention to Part I and sought to make improvements where we could, with such safeguards as we could find for the general public, the consumer, the coal-owners and the men employed in the mines. The reason why we have not been able to deal with Parts III and IV is that we have not been able to turn our attention to them because we have been dealing with Part I. Therefore, the change of plan on the part of the Government, a new arrangement which was come to last night to postpone Part I, is moat inconvenient, and we claim that, under the circumstances, the whole of the Clauses ought to be postponed until the new Clauses put down by the President of the Board of Trade have been discussed. We hope that the President of the Board of Trade will be consistent and
accept the Amendment, and allow the whole of the Bill to stand over until the new Clauses have been discussed.

Captain CAZALET: If ever obstruction was warranted in regard to the policy of a Government, I think the tactics of the present Government this afternoon have warranted obstruction to the greatest degree that our ingenuity is capable of designing it, but, as always, I do not intend to indulge in obstruction. I will confine myself to a few remarks in support of the Amendment. We have no objection to seeing the Front Bench opposite carrying on the government of this country by means of one surrender after another. All that we ask for is that, as an integral part of the House of Commons, we should know what are the terms of that surrender. We have heard speeches from the President of the Board of Trade and the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) in support of the action which the Government intend to take in postponing Part I. It seemed to me that both those speeches were entirely in defence of the proposition which we have put up from these benches. We make it perfectly clear that it is a monstrous injustice that, without any warning whatsoever, Part I of the Bill should be postponed merely because, as we learned from those two speeches, this new alliance, this new arrangement between the President of the Board of Trade and the Liberal party, is not yet complete.
We are within our rights in asking the Government what is Part I of the Bill. What is their plan? Do they know it or do they not? Do they know what Part I is going to be? If so, why do they not tell us? If they do not know, then surely it would be better to postpone the whole of the discussion of the Bill until Part I has been decided. We listened to a very able and courteous speech from the President of the Board of Trade. We on these benches regard anything in the shape of discourtesy as an absolute impossibility from the President of the Board of Trade, either physically, mentally or in any other way. His speech was courteous and delightful. I have always contended that if any man on the benches opposite can "put over" something to the
Opposition or to the House of Commons, the President of the Board of Trade is the man to do it, and I am certain that had he been really in control of the situation this afternoon he would have been the first to meet us on this point. By that means we should have avoided this controversial discussion, and we should have started the proceedings on Thursday in an atmosphere of harmony and peace which would have augured well for the future of the Bill. I am sure that that is the right hon. Gentleman's desire. What influences have compelled him to depart from his usual practice we do not know, and we can only speculate.
The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think that hon. Members on these benches had been put to any inconvenience by te arrangement which the convenience by the arrangement which the many back benchers have taken a certain amount of trouble in trying to discover facts and figures relevant to the discussion of the various parts of this Bill. We were informed only to-day that the question of hours was to be discussed. There are a great many facts in regard to hours of work in this country, in Poland and in Germany which are easily available. Some of us have been sitting on a Committee this morning. Had I known that the question of hours was to be dealt with to-day, I would have procured the facts, because I have taken a certain amount of interest in hours of work in Germany and Poland. When I looked at the Order Paper this morning I had no idea that the question of hours would be taken to-day, and it was not until this afternoon that we learned that that course was to be adopted. That is a very definite instance of the way in which we have been inconvenienced by the action which the Government have taken.
I hope that I have put my point as mildly and courteously as the President of the Board of Trade put his, and I hope that he will recognise that there is some substance in the point. I have studied with great care the speeches which were made from the Front Bench opposite on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Bill. In the speech of the Prime Minister and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade great emphasis was laid on the importance of Part I of the Bill. It was regarded as the
foundation, the kernel, the keystone of the whole Measure, yet to-day we are told that we will discuss Part I when everything else has been settled in regard to the Bill. We understood that it was only by the rearrangements, rationalisation and amalgamations which were to be brought about by Part I, that Part II was made possible. We were supported and confirmed in that opinion by the speeches of the most responsible members of the Front Bench opposite. It was owing to the economies that were going to be effected by these amalgamations that, when Part II came into operation, it would not be necessary to reduce wages. That was the whole gist of the argument. If we are not to know what Part I contains, how can we be justified in supporting Part II? I cannot understand how anyone with the lucidity of mind and the generosity of disposition of the President of the Board of Trade can possibly deny us what is elementary justice, if we are to discuss the Bill intelligently. I hope that we shall extract from some Member on the Front Bench a more vital argument than any that we have heard hitherto in support of the Government's action. Otherwise I maintain that within the limits of order we shall be justified in protracting discussions on the Bill until we have a more satisfactory explanation of the extraordinary violation of Parliamentary procedure in which the Government have indulged.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: One would require a heart of stone not to be moved by the very kindly things said by my two hon. and gallant Friends who have addressed the Committee. I do not mind admitting, quite frankly, that I wish I were in a position to respond, on the human side, to all these appeals; but I am just like anyone else who is in charge of a Parliamentary Bill. The Bill must be promoted with reasonable discussion, with fair play all round, and, so far as we can achieve it, in a business-like way. The two hon. and gallant Gentlemen will not complain if I intervene now to say that I am afraid the Government cannot accept the Amendment. I do not complain in the least of the spirit in which they moved it. The simple point before us is that originally this afternoon the Opposition took the strongest objection
to any postponement of Part I at all, and a decision was about to be reached upon that point. They now propose to go beyond that and to suspend the consideration of all Clauses of the Bill and presumably to take the amalgamation proposals first.
I shall be perfectly candid with the House now and to the end. I should have liked to see the old arrangement from many points of view, but if the consideration of Part I is postponed, I think that beyond all question we must address our minds at the earliest possible moment to the analysis of the hours proposal. It is quite true that it is tied up with Part I, but it is also fundamental to this legislation, and it is, of course, vital to the fulfilment of the pledge of the Government. It is now proposed that we should embark on an analysis of the amalgamations without knowing what is to be the position in hours or whether there is to be this National Industrial Board or certain other features of the Bill. I cannot possibly accept such an Amendment, and I trust that the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen will not press it to a Division.

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would, if he could, persuade us that he was taking the right course. I am equally satisfied that throughout the country it will be realised that we are doing a very bad day's work indeed if the procedure proposed by the Government is adopted. The proposal before the House is to postpone Part I until after the new Clauses have been taken. I ask hon. Members to turn to the Order Paper and see what is the first of the new Clauses' and what are the very first words in that first Clause. The first words are: "Part I of this Act shall continue in force …" We are asked, indeed, to jump to the consideration of new Clauses before the consideration of Part I, and the first of the new Clauses deals at once with Part I, of which the House has no knowledge. Surely that is an absurd proposition to submit to the House?
I raise my opposition on far wider grounds. With a Bill of this magnitude and importance, Members come down to the House prepared to discuss the Amendments which appear on the Order Paper, having given full consideration, before arriving, to the questions in issue, The President of the Board of Trade must
agree that Members do not come to this House prepared to jump to any subject at a moment's notice without mature consideration. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully before he commits the House to a policy of this kind, merely as a matter of political expediency and of buying off or buying in the necessary assistance to maintain certain political power in this House, and to remember always that the great public outside is committed for many years to come by what we do in this House. I ask him even now to consider whether it is not better to accept the Amendment, or go further and say that he will report Progress in order to see whether the Business of the House cannot be put into orderly shape. If he would do that he would save time. But for fear of being accused of obstruction, I would like to show how actions of this kind are slowly biting into the constitutional life of this country—[Interruption.] There are hon. Members opposite who are sitting in this House to-day because such practices were so carefully guarded against in years gone by.

Captain PEAKE: I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade because I understand that the Amendment would have the effect of postponing the discussion of Part II until the new Clauses have been considered. There stands in my name on the Paper what I believe to be the most important Amendment to the Bill, and that is the Amendment which suggests a 90 hours fortnight in place of a 7½ hours day. Apart from the personal inconvenience to which I and my friends in this House are to be put by the course which the right hon. Gen-

tleman wishes to take, a far graver issue is raised by the proposal to take Part II of the Bill to-day. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is far better to get things settled by agreement, if possible, than to get them carried through this House and forced upon an industry which is not willing to agree to them. If Part II had been taken in its ordinary sequence, there would have been at least another 10 days for the two sides in the mining industry to get together, and possibly, even probably, to come to an agreement upon this vexed question of hours.

Mr. BATEY: Not a bit of it.

Captain PEAKE: After all, the principle of a 90 hours fortnight or a 45 hours week has been agreed to—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That cannot be discussed on this Amendment.

Captain PEAKE: I do say that the President of the Board of Trade by deciding the hours question now is closing the door on all negotiations between miners and mineowners. It will be impossible to get the two sides together nationally or in the districts. If there had been another 10 days, I believe that in the light of what has happened at Geneva and what Mr. Cook said the other day, an agreement between the owners and the men to accept a compromise would have been possible, and that it would not have had the effect of adding 1s. 6d. a ton to the cost of coal.

Question put, "That the words 'Part I' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 134.

Division No. 138.]
AYES.
[7.59 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Charleton, H. C.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Birkett, W. Norman
Chater, Daniel


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Church, Major A. G.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bowen, J. W.
Clarke, J. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cluse, W. S.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, Francis Alfred
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Angell, Norman.
Bromfield, William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Arnott, John
Bromley, J.
Compton, Joseph


Aske, Sir Robert
Brooke, W.
Cove, William G.


Ayles, Walter
Brothers, M.
Daggar, George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dallas, George


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dalton, Hugh


Barnes, Alfred John
Burgess, F. G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Batey, Joseph
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Devlin, Joseph


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Caine, Derwent Hall.
Dickson, T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cameron, A. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Benson, G.
Cape, Thomas
Dukes, C.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Duncan, Charles


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Edge, Sir William
Longbottom, A W.
Sanders, W. S.


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Sandham, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lowth, Thomas
Scrymgeour, E.


Egan, W. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scurr, John


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sexton, James


England, Colonel A.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
McElwee, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
McEntee, V. L.
Shield, George William


Freeman, Peter
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shinwell, E.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McShane, John James
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mansfield, W.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Gill, T. H.
March, S.
Sinkinson, George


Gillett, George M.
Marcus, M.
Sitch, Charles H.


Glassey, A. E.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gossling, A. G.
Marley, J.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gould, F.
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maxton, James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gray, Milner
Melville, Sir James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Messer, Fred
Snell, Harry


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Middleton, G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Millar, J. D.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, J.
Sorensen, R.


Had, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morley, Ralph
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Harbison, T. J.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Harbord, A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, G. R.


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sullivan, J.


Harris, Percy A.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sutton, J. E.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mart, D. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Motley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Haycock, A. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, Hugh
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Nathan, Major H. L
Toole, Joseph


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Townend, A. E.


Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Turner, B.


Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Palin, John Henry
Viant, S. P.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Paling, Wilfrid
Walker, J.


Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Perry, S. F.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Watkins, F. C.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Johnston, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, F. Llewellyn (Flint)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pole, Major D. G.
West, F. R.


Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Potts, John S.
Westwood, Joseph


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Price, M. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pybus, Percy John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm-, Ladywood)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Richards, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rasbotham, D. S. T.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Leach, W.
Rothschild, J. de
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rowson, Guy



Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bracken, B.


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Beaumont, M. W.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Berry, Sir George
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Carver, Major W. H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Castle Stewart, Earl of




Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Salmon, Major I.


Chapman, Sir S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Savery, S. S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smithers, Waldron


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Knox, Sir Alfred
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Train, J.


Dixey, A. C.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Everard, W. Lindsay
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wayland, Sir William A.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Muirhead, A. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut. Colonel George


Cower, Sir Robert
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Withers, Sir John James


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil
Womersley, W. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, John R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Haslam, Henry C.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.



Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Main Question again proposed.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON rose—

Mr. THOMAS KENNEDY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 130.

Division No. 139.]
AYES.
[8 13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Burgess, F. G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Egan, W. H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Elmley, Viscount


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
England, Colonel A.


Alpass, J. H.
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)


Ammon, Charles George
Cameron, A. G.
Forgan, Dr. Robert


Angell, Norman
Cape, Thomas
Freeman, Peter


Arnott, John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Aske, Sir Robert
Charleton, H. C.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Ayles, Walter
Chater, Daniel
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Church, Major A. G.
Gibbins, Joseph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Clarke, J. S.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Barnes, Alfred John
Cluse, W. S.
Gill, T. H.


Batey, Joseph
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Glassey, A. E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Compton, Joseph
Gossling, A. G.


Bennett, Captain E.N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cove, William G.
Gould, F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Daggar, George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Benson, G.
Dallas, George
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Dalton, Hugh
Gray, Milner


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Birkett, W. Norman
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowen, J. W.
Devlin, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dickson, T.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bromfield, William
Dukes, C.
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bromley, J.
Duncan, Charles
Harbison, T. J.


Brooke, W.
Ede, James Chuter
Harbord, A.


Brothers, M.
Edge, Sir William
Hardie, George D.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edmunds, J. E.
Harris, Percy A.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred
Shinwell, E.


Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Milner, J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Montague, Frederick
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morgan Dr. H. B.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Herriotts, J.
Morley, Ralph
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hoffman, P. C.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Horrabin, J. F.
Mort, D. L.
Snell, Harry


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Sorensen, R.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Murnin, Hugh
Stamford, Thomas W.


Johnston, Thomas
Nathan, Major H. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Oldfield, J. R.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Strauss, G. R.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sullivan, J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sutton, J. E.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Palin, John Henry.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Paling, Wilfrid
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Palmer, E. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thurtle, Ernest


Kennedy, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Toole, Joseph


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tout, W. J.


Lawrence, Susan
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Townend, A. E.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Pole, Major D. G.
Turner, B.


Leach, W.
Potts, John S.
Vaughan, D. J.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Price, M. P.
Viant, S. P.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Pybus, Percy John
Walker, J.


Lees, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wallace, H. W.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wallhead, Richard C.


Logan, David Gilbert
Raynes, W. R.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Longbottom, A. W.
Richards, R.
Watkins, F. C.


Longden, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wellock, Wilfred


Lowth, Thomas
Ritson, J.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Romeril, H. G.
West, F. R.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Westwood, Joseph


McElwee, A.
Rothschild, J. de
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


McEntee, V. L.
Rowson, Guy
Whitetey, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea. East)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


McShane, John James
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Malone, C. L Estrange (N'thampton)
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Mansfield, W.
Sandham, E.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


March, S.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Marcus, M.
Scrymgeour, E.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Markham, S. F.
Scurr, John
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Marley, J.
Sexton, James
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Mathers, George
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Matters, L. W.
Sherwood, G. H.



Maxton, James
Shield, George William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Melville, Sir James
Shillaker, J. F.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Everard, W. Lindsay


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fermoy, Lord


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Colville, Major D. J.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Baillie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ganzoni, Sir John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gower, Sir Robert


Beaumont, M. W.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bracken, B.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Carver, Major W. H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller




Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Train, J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hurd, Percy A.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ramsbotham, H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, John R.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Salmon, Major I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Savery, S. S.
Withers, Sir John James


Macquisten, F. A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Skelton, A. N.
Womersley, W. J.


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Smith, Louis W (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smithers, Waldron
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Meller, R. J.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)



Muirhead, A. J.
Thomson, Sir F.

Question put accordingly,

"That the Consideration of Part I be postponed until after the new Clauses (other than those in which Part I of the Bill or

any Clause in that Part is mentioned) have been disposed of."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 276; Noes, 131.

Division No. 140.]
AYES.
[8.22 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Daggar, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dallas, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dalton, Hugh
Herriotts, J.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hoffman, P. C.


Ammon, Charles George
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hopkin, Daniel


Angell, Norman.
Dickson, T.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Arnott, John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Horrabin, J. F.


Aske, Sir Robert
Dukes, C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Ayles, Walter
Duncan, Charles
Hunter, Dr. Joseph


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Ede, James Chuter
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edge, Sir William
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Barnes, Alfred John
Edmunds, J. E.
Johnston, Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Egan, W. H.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
England, Colonel A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Benson, G.
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Freeman, Peter
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Birkett, W. Norman
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Kelly, W. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kennedy, Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gill, T. H.
Lawrence, Susan


Bromfield, William
Gillett, George M.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bromley, J.
Glassey, A. E.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brooke, W.
Gossling, A. G.
Loach, W.


Brothers, M.
Gould, F.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lees, J.


Burgess, F. G.
Gray, Milner
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Logan, David Gilbert


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Long bottom, A. W.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Longden, F.


Caine, Derwent Hall-
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lowth, Thomas


Cape, Thomas
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Charleton, H. C.
Harbord, A.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, George D.
McElwee, A.


Church, Major A. G.
Harris, Percy A.
McEntee, V. L.


Clarke, J. S.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Haycock, A. W.
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayday, Arthur
McShane, John James


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Cove, William G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mansfield, W.


March, S.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Stephen, Campbell


Marcus, M.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Markham, S. F.
Raynes, W. R.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Marley, J.
Richards, R.
Strauss, G. R.


Mathers, George
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, J.


Matters, L. W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sutton, J. E.


Maxton, James
Ritson, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Melville, Sir James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Messer, Fred
Romeril, H. G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Middleton, G.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Millar, J. D.
Rothschild, J. de
Tinker, John Joseph


Milner, J.
Rowson, Guy
Toole, Joseph


Montague, Frederick
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Tout, W. J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


Morley, Ralph
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Turner, B.


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Sanders, W. S.
Vaughan, D. J.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sandham, E.
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Walker, J.


Mort, D. L.
Scrymgeour, E.
Wallace, H. W.


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Scurr, John
Wallhead, Richard C.


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Sexton, James
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watkins, F. C.


Murnin, Hugh
Sherwood, G. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Nathan, Major H L.
Shield, George William
Wellock, Wilfred


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Oldfield, J. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
West, F. R.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Westwood, Joseph


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Palin, John Henry
Sinkinson, George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sitch, Charles H.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Parkinson, John Alien (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Picton-Tubervill, Edith
Snell, Harry
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Pole, Major D. G.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Potts, John S.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)



Price, M. P.
Sorensen, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Pybus, Percy John
Stamford, Thomas W.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dixey, A. C.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Allen, W. E. D. (Bellast, W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Margesson, Captain H D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Meller, R. J.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt Hon. Sir W.


Beaumont, M. W.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Berry, Sir George
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Bracken, B.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ramsbotham, H.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, John R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Chapman, Sir S.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colville, Major D. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Salmon, Major I.


Conwav, Sir W. Martin
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Skelton, A. N.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Smith, Louts W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. O
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Thomson, Sir F.




Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Womersley, W. J.


Train, J.
Wells, Sydney R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir George Penny and Captain Wallace.


Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.
Withers, Sir John James

Consideration of Part 1 (Clausen 1 to 8 inclusive) postponed accordingly.

CLAUSE 9.—(Temporary amendment of 8 Edw. 7. c. 57. s. 3.)

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move in page 13, line 30, to leave out from the beginning to the word "section," in line 31.
I apologise to the Committee for introducing a manuscript Amendment. It is a most objectionable form of procedure, but I accept no responsibility for it. It is due to a combination of circumstances. I may be able to simplify it in less formal language by stating that it has the effect of omitting the words
During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926.
I must apologise if I am causing the Committee any inconvenience, but I have not the prescience of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), and I did not realise, until breakfast time this morning, that it would possibly be necessary to deal with Part II of the Bill. The right hon. Member for Darwen was much more cautious, and by a lucky chance he has succeeded in diverting his attention upon Parts II, III and IV, while his party was considering Amendments to Part I. This Amendment requires reference to the Coal Mines Act of 1926, with which I have no doubt most hon. Members are quite familiar. That Act was passed on 8th July, 1926, and provided that it should be continued in force for a period of five years. That period will come to a conclusion in July, 1931, 16 months or so from this date. The object of this Amendment is one with which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade will sympathise, because if the words in the Clause stand as they are, the inevitable effect will be that the question of hours, with all its implications and the trouble which it is continually causing to the House and to the country, must come up for discussion again on the expiration of the 1926 Act. Surely the coal industry and those engaged in it have in the last 20 years
had enough legislation, which has not been uniformly successful. They and the House will have had enough of it by the time this Bill is through. Yet, as this Clause stands, I suppose that in 16 months from now we shall once more have to have the whole matter brought up for review; we shall have the whole discussion reopened, and all the old troubles renewed.
If the words are omitted, there is nothing to prevent the Government then in office from making what rearrangements they like, but I suggest that Acts of Parliament which are drawn so as to confine themselves to, or to depend upon various contingencies and the expiry of other Acts, will leave the industry affected in a state of uncertainty, and that is the last thing we wish to happen. As long as we legislate in such a way that 8, 10, 12 or 14 months hence the question has to be reopened, we are making it increasingly difficult for employers and employés to get down to their work without continually wondering what Parliament will do when the Act under which they are working expires. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider whether the Bill would not be better without these words. They do not add to the power of this Government. If he is in office at the time, provided he has a majority, he can deal with the case as his majority think fit; but if the words remain they merely create a further period of uncertainty for the industry and all who are engaged in it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I under stand there is a manuscript Amendment which proposes to strike out the words "Continuance of the Mines Act, 1926" in order to insert "Part I of this Act." I hope the position will be safeguarded so that that Amendment can be moved.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, I shall see that that is done. The Question I shall put will be "That the words down to the second word 'the' in line 30, stand part of the Clause."

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I rise to support the Amendment which has been so ably moved by my hon. Friend. As this is a manuscript Amendment, perhaps it will do no harm if I read the Clause as it would remain if the Amendment were passed.
Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the word 'one hour' there were therein substituted the words half an hour.'
The gist of that is to make the increase of time to be worked in the mines, one half-hour—to make that permanent instead of leaving it as a tentative experiment for a period of less than 18 months, as would be the result if the Clause remained as it is at the present time. The Coal Mines Act, 1926, which will expire on the 8th July, 1931, increased the permissible number of hours which could be worked in a mine by one hour per day. This Clause reduces that by one half-hour, but that reduction can only last, in effect, for less than 18 months, because at the end of that time the Act of 1926 automatically comes to an end. In my opinion it is bad enough to have the trade dislocated once, but it would be just twice as bad to have it dislocated twice during a period of 18 months. It would be to the advantage of the trade if this alteration were made permanent instead of for only this particular period.
Goodness knows, the coal trade has been disturbed more than enough during the past 30 or 40 years. The dislocations have been of several kinds; there have been strikes, there have been lock-outs and stoppages due to unforeseen circumstances, and worst of all, there have been these dislocations due to legislation. Not only has production suffered, but marketing has suffered to an extraordinary extent. The coal exporter has enough factors to reckon with as it is, without having to take into consideration legislation which may affect the output or may affect the price of his commodity. He has to take into consideration the cost at the pit head, railway charges, freight and insurance charges, and also the demand in the place where he sells his coal. To add another factor to the dislocations which already exists will make it still more difficult for him to market the commodity abroad, more difficult for him to sell at a fixed price, and more difficult for him
to make his contracts. For that reason I suggest that, however foolish this suggestion on the part of the Labour party may be, it is better to put up with the foolishness of which we know than to run the risk of having the trade upset twice in a period of 18 months.
The loss of markets by this country during the past 40 or 50 years is an absolute tragedy. There was a time not so very long ago, well within the memory of men who are now operating on the Coal Exchange, when British coal could be sold in practically every port and every market of the world. The fact that it is no longer so is largely due to the disturbing influences which I have just named—to the strikes, to the lock-outs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] Very well, if hon. Members disagree with that I will prove my words. Not so very long ago, well within the memory of men now in the trade, we were actually able to sell Cardiff coal in Norfolk or Newport News, in the United States, a proceeding which to-day would be regarded as tantamount to carrying coals to Newcastle. Norfolk and Newport News are exporting centres for Pocahontas steam coal, which in the days before oil fuel became so general was the steam coal which competed more than any other with Welsh coal in the markets of the world. The fact that we have lost that market is not altogether due to the dislocations such as this Clause would cause—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—it is due to developments on the other side; but I do maintain that the loss of our markets on the River Plate, where there have been no colliery developments at all, and where there are not likely to be any, is very largely due to the fact that our exporters were unable to fix prices and make contracts, as they would have been able to do had they been assured of consistent conditions here. Thirty years ago we had practically a monopoly of the River Plate market. We also exported coal largely from Cardiff to the Cape, and there, again, the market has been lost through interferences with the trade. The same applies to the lost markets of Colombo, Bombay and even Calcutta. Twenty-five years ago we exported largely to Bombay and Colombo. To-day the whole of that market is supplied by Calcutta coal. We even sent the coal to Java or even to. Shanghai, a thing which is unheard of
in these days. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Russia?"] I am coming to that. In the same way, at one time we sent coal to the whole of the Baltic ports, and we had a monopoly in the case of Denmark and Copenhagen. To-day, the interference to which I have alluded has made it impossible for our exporters to keep their contracts, and we have lost those markets. At one time the Tyne and Humber had a monopoly of the whole of the trade with the Baltic and Scandinavian ports, but to-day we hold less than 40 per cent. of that trade, the balance being supplied from Polish Silesia shipped from Danzig or from the new port being opened just close by. That is very largely due to the difficulties which our exporters had to face owing to interference by legislation and the uncertainty which prevailed in the coal trade in this country.

Mr. BECKETT: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that British capital in Poland employing Polish miners at 17s. 9d. a week has captured that trade?

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Those mines in Poland would never have been developed but for the difficulties which occurred in this country.

Mr. BECKETT rose—

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: The hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Beckett) can make his points later on, and I shall then show to him more patience, and I hope more courtesy, than he is showing to me. Twenty or 15 years ago we had a monopoly of the Genoa market.

Mr. BECKETT rose—

The CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to interrupt.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order.

Mr. BECKETT: The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert-Ward) refuses to give way, but I have never refused to give way to him.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull gave
way in the first instance, and the hon. Member cannot expect him to keep on giving way.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I am not aware that I have ever interrupted the hon. Member. I maintain that if there had been less interference with the coal trade the development of a great many of our coalfields would not have been hampered in the way that it has been, and we should not have lost markets which until then we regarded as particularly our own. During the last three or four years there has been greater stability in the coal trade, and to some extent we have gained some of those lost markets. During the past four years there has been no interference with the coal trade. In that period, we have recovered the Scandinavian markets, and we are sending-coal over the whole coast of Belgium and the Northern coast of France.
We have no monopoly there, and we have to sell our coal at a price which a great many people hold is utterly un-remunerative. At the same time, we are gaining a foothold in the markets which we have lost. It is bad enough to cause further dislocation of trade by altering the working day from eight hours to seven-and-a-half hours, but, unfortunately, it is much worse to do it twice over during a period of 18 months. In either case it will remain uncertain, and exporters will be unable to fix a price. This means cutting the price very close, and the exporters cannot do that unless they know at least two years in advance what the conditions are likely to be in the coalfields of the United Kingdom. The conditions will be bad enough when the working day is reduced from eight hours to seven-and-a-half hours, but they will be infinitely worse when the seven-and-a-half hours is turned bark to eight hours in less than 18 months time.

Mr. BECKETT: The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull has attributed the trouble in the coal trade to too much legislation, but I would like to ask him if he is aware that British capital in Poland employs Polish miners at 17s. 9d. per week and in that way they are undercutting coalowners in the Baltic? The hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull said the reason for that was that too much legislation had driven the capital away from that trade, but the
hon. and gallant Member must have been very hard-up fur an argument to be so unwise as to make a statement of that kind. I am sure even hon. Members who act with the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull would dissociate themselves from the argument that British miners should be able to compete with Polish miners at 17s. 9d. per week.

Sir R. HORNE: I have had very little time to consider the Acts of Parliament in order to see how this Amendment will work out, and this is a point which it is very difficult to determine in a hurry. These Acts of Parliament are very complicated, and legislation on this subject has been mostly by reference. So far as I can gather from a cursory examination of this proposal, what is now being proposed by this Amendment will not have the effect which is claimed for these words. Accordingly, I have on this point put down another Amendment which will come on later. If we are going to have this kind of discussion, without sufficient preparation to enable us to see how these Amendments are going to work, it is quite obvious that we shall go on discussing this Amendment until we are exhausted, and then we shall discuss the same question on a form of Amendment, which I think will bring it out, but will not be reached for some time until other discussions have taken place on this Clause, and then all that we have done to-night in discussing this Amendment will be entirely abortive, and we shall have it all over again on an appropriate form of words.
This really demonstrates what I ventured to point out to my right hon. Friend in the course of the afternoon, namely, that it puts everyone in such a position that the Debate cannot be carried on, and reduces the whole matter to a farce, for which we really are not to blame. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that we could not anticipate that we had to be prepared with our Amendments to Part II this afternoon. The very time that the right hon. Gentleman took to consider the Amendments proposed was enough to justify us in believing that we should not reach this part of the Bill for a considerable time, and I venture to suggest to him that he should allow Progress to be reported. [Interruption.] I say that not with any desire at all to obstruct.
Surely hon. Members will give us credit for having proper motives on this matter. We are all, I hope, just as much interested in our country as they are, and these are matters of vital importance. I appeal again to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Debate to be adjourned, so that we may have a proper opportunity of debating this matter on a form of words which will really raise the question. I beg to move, "That the chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to accept that Motion.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I think I can help the Committee to some step in the problem which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hill-head (Sir R. Horne) and other Members on the opposite side. We have debated at considerable length the question whether there has not been proper notice or opportunity for the discussion of the hours question, and the Committee, of course, has taken a decision. I tried to point out earlier that this proposal, including the Amendments on the Paper has been before the House for a long time, and I think it is a very fair reply to say to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that they could quite easily have been prepared to-night with the views that they intended to express. While I hold very strongly to that point, and must maintain it, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, and whom, I should like to say in passing, I am glad to see again in his place. It is very difficult to disentangle these Acts of Parliament and to know exactly where we stand in regard to an Amendment of this kind, and, accordingly, I will explain the situation to the Committee, and make a proposal for what seems to me to be by far the better way of discussing this question of the reduction of half an hour, together with any proposal for averaging the hours over the week or fortnight which hon. Members may have in mind.
As the Committee know, under the existing legislation, that is to say, the Act of 1926, the permissible time is eight hours per day plus winding time, and, if the Clause went through in the form that the Government suggest, it would, as from some date four months
after the passing of this Measure, reduce the eight hours to 7½ hours plus winding time, and that would continue until the Act of 1926 expires in July, 1931, when there would be an automatic reversion to the pre-1926 position of seven hours plus winding time, the latter averaging, over the whole country, about 35 minutes. That would be the state of affairs if there were no further legislation dealing with hours over and above the proposal in this Bill, and if the Act of 1926 expired in July, 1931.
9.0 p.m.
So much for the general position. Let us turn now to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Ramsbotham), and supported by the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). The two hon. Members, or, at all events, the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull, suggested that this was a permanent Amendment, and, of course, for the purposes of this Clause, that could only be a permanent Amendment of Section 3 of the Coal Mines Act, 1908. I am not going to press this point, because I am so reluctant to put any obstacle in the way of the discussion, but the Title of this Bill provides for amendment of the Act of 1908, and I am under the impression that, if this be a permanent proposal, as the two hon. Members say, it is not in order. I do not want to build upon that, however, because I am quite prepared to take the merits of the case. The Act of 1908, in the Section which provides for an eight-hours day in the coal mines of this country, provides for 60 hours over a year of commercial overtime, that is to say, on 60 days in the year an additional hour may be worked. What would be the effect of this present Amendment? It would delete the words at the beginning of the Clause:
During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926,
and the Clause would then read that Section 3 of the Act of 1908, which relates only to this commercial overtime, and which permits the working of one additional hour on 60 days in the year, would have that hour reduced to half an hour.
I have said sufficient to show that that is a perfectly hopeless method of dealing with this proposition. I do not for one moment blame the two hon. Members
who have moved this Amendment, because only one who has lived with this subject for several months could endeavour to expound it, and I am not sure that I have by any means exhausted the subject in this rapid review of the situation. What is the better way of dealing with this problem? We have now approached the hours Clause in the Bill. There are two Amendments on the Paper, one in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville), suggesting that the hours should be averaged at 45 over the week, and the other in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake), suggesting that they should be averaged at 90 over a fortnight. I suggest that, subject, Mr. Young, to your agreement, it would probably be the general wish and for the general convenience of the Committee, if after the present technically impossible Amendment, as I regard it, has been disposed of, we took the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Leeds, which is more comprehensive than that of the hon. Member for North Midlothian, and discussed on that Amendment both the proposal of the Government to reduce the working time by half an hour and the proposal of hon. Members opposite to accompany that reduction by an average, whether over a week or over a fortnight. I suggest that that would give us a comprehensive discussion, with perfect freedom to the Committee and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead. Quite candidly, there is no chance of exhausting this very important subject to-night. Many of my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee who represent mining constituencies wish to speak. Accordingly, the discussion would continue until 11 o'clock to-night, and then we should resume on this subject at Four o'clock on Thursday afternoon, when I give the Committee the assurance that there will be ample opportunity to explore it in all its aspects, because undeniably it is an important feature of the Bill. On that basis I think we might very well reach agreement on the lines that I respectfully suggest to the Committee.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Will it be a definite understanding that there is no Closure on that particular point?

Mr. GRAHAM: My hon. Friend must not feel sore about any Closure. I think
he is under a misunderstanding. It is perfectly clear, however, that we have the remainder of the time to-night, and I can say at once that we must devote the great bulk of the day on Thursday to this subject. It will be in the interest of all of us if we can take the discussion on a comprehensive basis, but we must of course get a decision on this subject on Thursday.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: I should like to suggest, Mr. Young, that it might perhaps meet the general wish of the Committee if you would allow this evening a quite general discussion on the whole question of the Clause. It has already been indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), and I entirely agree that to debate any Amendment moved in this way would only add to the extraordinary legislative complexities which are inherent in this Clause as it now stands. At least three Acts of Parliament must be consulted before it is possible really to understand what any Amendment means when it is moved. I therefore think, if the Amendment cannot be withdrawn—and I do not suppose it will be withdrawn—the time of the Committee would be better devoted, with your permission, Sir—it cannot be done without your permission—to a general discussion on the subject of the proposal to reduce the hours of labour as contained in the Clause.

The CHAIRMAN: It was my intention when we took the Amendment on the Paper to allow a full discussion on the question of hours. I have here such a number of manuscript Amendments that it is very difficult to deal with them. I think we ought to dispose of this one.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the right hon. Gentleman has really misunderstood the object of the manuscript Amendment which is now proposed, because he has made the suggestion that all the questions raised in it will be met if we have a general discussion on seven and a half hours a day, or 45 hours a week. The Amendment, as I understand it, is wholly separate from that question. If we had had an opportunity of putting it on the Paper, the difficulty would not have arisen. The Amendment, as I understand it, is directed to the question which the right hon. Gentleman has been discussing at Geneva, namely, what
ought to be the final arrangements with regard to hours in this industry. It is plain, whatever may be the right decision, that it is a matter which unquestionably ought to be debated on this Bill, and I was very glad the right hon. Gentleman did not take the technical point that the Amendment in form is one of a permanent character. Of course, that could quite easily be got round by an Amendment. No one would suggest that whatever Bill you might pass fixing hours necessarily fixed hours for all time. You do not want to do that. But, equally, I think you do not want always to have this question of hours being brought forward year by year and subject to some sudden change—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not do it in 1926?"]—We did. We gave five years—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would say that for a period of years—five years, if you will—there shall be no further change in hours, that at any rate would give some period of certainty, but I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman himself would look forward with any equanimity to the prospect of having a very long progress of this Bill, which inevitably is going to take a long time and the progress of which must be to some extent disturbing to the industry. Supposing he gets the Bill and we settle that you have either seven-and-a-half hours a day or you average it over the week, is that only to hold good for six months, and is the-whole thing to be in the melting pot again? That is the issue, I understand, that is raised by the Amendment, It may be that this is really not the right form in which to discuss the question. It may be that ultimately this Amendment ought to be withdrawn and that my right hon. Friend's Amendment, which I have not seen, is the right one. But, again, I am at a disadvantage, and the right hon. Gentleman is at a disadvantage, because he has not yet seen it. [Interruption.] When he intervenes again, no doubt he will advise us in the matter. To take the question of construction, as far as I can make out from what he said, while the Amendment appears to be permanent in form, it will have one effect for the next year and a-half, and, when the Act of 1926 has expired, it will have a different effect. It is extremely difficult to deal with these things by reference,
and I am not sure that it would not have been more convenient if the Clause had been drafted so that he who runs may read, and, instead of saying we amend this for such and such a time in reference to that Act so that it may be read with the variation of a third Act, we had the Clause set out so that it said in simple language exactly what hours a man might work. Then we could understand it. I am not sure, on the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of his own Clause, that what he is doing is only to affect Section 3 of the Act of 1908 which, as far as I can make out, does not deal with the ordinary daily hours the miner works, but only with the extra hours that may be worked in exceptional circumstances. The Section is headed, "Power to extend hours worked on a limited number of days in the year."
The Clause as drafted says:
Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the words 'one hour' there were therein substituted the words 'half an hour.'
If my hon. and learned Friend's Amendment is in the wrong form, is not the Clause also in the wrong form?

Mr. BATEY: You did it in 1926.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not on the merits, but on the form. I will come to the merits in a moment. The President of the Board of Trade objects to the Amendment, because he says it is only in relation to Section 3, and it would only have a temporary effect, and an exceptional effect. Whatever we are to do, we want to be amending the right section. If the construction the President of the Board of Trade has put upon the Amendment is right, his own Clause is wrongly drafted, because it is drafted so as to amend Section 3. I really think that it is so.

Mr. BATEY: Oh, yes, it is, but you altered Section 3 in 1926, and because you altered Section 3 in 1926 this is bound to follow.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not at all ashamed of what we did in 1926. If this is the appropriate time to discuss whether what we did in 1926 was right or wrong, we will debate it. I should be ready at any time on this Clause in this House or anywhere else to debate that matter, but I am not sure that I ought
to embark upon it on this Amendment. [Interruption.] I really do not think we ought to travel as far afield as that. [Interruption.] I will if challenged, but I am prepared to confine myself to rather narrow limits.

Mr. TOM SMITH: In Section 1 of the right hon. Gentleman's own Act of 1926 are these words:
During the continuance of this Act, Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect.
The language used in this Bill is due to the fact that in 1926 the right hon. Gentleman himself amended Section 3 of the 1908 Act.

Mr. HASLAM: As we are taking part in this Debate in very difficult circumstances, may I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to read out the manuscript Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: I have already done so. The Amendment is, in page 13, line 30, to leave out from the beginning to the word "section" in line 31.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I was under the impression that what was done by the Act of 1926 was, that, whereas the hours for working were seven hours from bank to bank, in 1926 they became eight hours.

Mr. BATEY: We did not touch that. It was an alteration with reference to the 60 days.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think there may be something in the hon. Gentleman's point. I may be wrong in that. In the maze of legislation by reference even a lawyer may stumble, much less a layman. Let us come to what the right hon. Gentleman wants to do by this Clause. As I understand it, he wants by this Clause to say that seven-and-a-half hours are to be a legitimate period, and all I say is, for heaven's sake let us be quite sure that we are using appropriate language in order to do this. Sometimes in altering Acts of Parliament we have repealed several Sections, and then set out their binding effect in a new Section. It would be more helpful and intelligible if we had tabled before us the actual meaning of this Clause. The object of this Amendment may be wrong in form for the purpose it seeks to accomplish. If so, and the right hon. Gentleman can convince us of that. I am sure
that my hon. Friends will be ready to withdraw it in order that an Amendment raising this issue in a convenient form may appear on the Paper. I am perfectly certain that no one wishes to stereotype the working hours for all time.
The right hon. Gentleman said two things. First of all, uncertainty is very bad for this trade. That is quite true. It is true of all trades, and I hope that he will remind his colleagues of that fact. "Make the necessary representations," I think is the expression of the Lord Privy Seal. He has emphasised its importance. He has also emphasised, and no one more so, the importance of international agreements, and in this I am glad to say he seems to have found a convert in Mr. Cook. We were not very successful with Mr. Cook. [Interruption.] At any rate, we have increased the export trade in coal by 10,000,000 tons. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that done?"] In the last year and a half. [An HON. MEMBER: "We have been in office during the last six months!"] Yes, carrying on under our Act. [Interruption.] I was under the impression that we were selling in competition. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the Bill; it is one of great interest. The Bill contains a provision which enables a levy to be made in order that the foreigner may get coal cheaper.

Mr. BATEY: Does not the foreigner get it cheaper now?

The CHAIRMAN: This discussion seems to be getting wide of the mark.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: It was not I who embarked upon that matter. I was saying that uncertainty was one of the conditions which was being considered by the right hon. Gentleman. The other was international agreements, and he is very fond of making international agreements. Some of the international agreements which he seeks to make are good, and some are certainly not so good. One that undoubtedly would be good would be an agreement in regard to hours or wages in coal mines. He certainly will find in myself, and, I think, in all who sit on these benches, active supporters every time he goes to Geneva in order to try and bring the standards in foreign countries up to the standards of this country. If he will devote his attention to that instead of
trying to tie our hands by a tariff truce, he will receive more assistance and meet with more general support. I think that he has been rather successful with Mr. Cook—nearly as successful as with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I am not sure whether he has a deal with Mr. Cook or whether he has only an understanding, or whether they are both free to act as they like on the later stages of the Bill. At any rate, I think Mr. Cook and the owners are sufficiently alive to the importance of international agreements. I do not think I shall be misquoting Mr. Cook when I state that I read an account of a speech which he made in which he said he was speaking for himself, thought have no doubt that he was speaking the mind of a large number of the mining community whom he represents. The general tenor of his speech was, "When we have got this wretched Bill through, for Heaven's sake do not let us have any more upsets or changes until we can get changes by international means." If that was the view which he expressed, then I think he was expressing a view of very great wisdom and sanity which should command very general support.
The right hon. Gentleman has through his Under-Secretary been labouring at Geneva in order to try and get the foreign countries of the world into agreement. There appears to be no possible prospect of getting agreement over wages, according to the reports which are available to me. We have heard a good deal about wages being very low in this country, and they are certainly not very high, but, apparently, they are on an altitude to which it is quite impossible to get foreign mining countries to come up by conventions. Though there seems to be no prospect of getting any agreement about wages there does seem to be some reasonable prospect, if we do not tie our hands, of getting agreement over hours. I understand they were near enough to agreement to make all those who were present at the preparatory conference consider it worth while to hold a full-dress conference under the auspices of the International Labour Department of the League of Nations. The voting appears to have been rather interesting, according to the only report of which I have been able to get hold, and which, I think, is probably right. It says:
It may be said that the principal question left unsettled is that of the time to be spent in the mines. The Office draft did not propose any figure. The various proposals or amendments submitted by members of the Conference suggested that the normal time spent in the mine should be as follows:
Seven hours, 7½ hours, 7½ hours with transitory provisions allowing the figure to he raised to 7¾ hours during a period to be fixed by the International Labour Conference, 7¾ hours, 7½ hours plus half an hour's break, and 8 hours.
These proposals were rejected by votes which I will mention in a moment.
If the view of the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Cook is right the question of hours ought to be settled by international agreement in the interest of this country, because it is only by international agreement that you will get hours down here, for you must get a level of hours. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why did you not think of that before?"] I have always thought of it, and I have tried for international agreement, but what I never accepted was the thesis, so often put to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this country had better do something which no other country proposed to follow it in doing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to remember that when I was a responsible Minister I asked the House to ratify international conventions which I had made. [Interruption.] I shall make way sooner for the speeches which hon. Members wish to deliver if they will allow me to continue. I was responsible for making many conventions, but I included in those conventions a provision in the more important of them that this country, while perfectly ready to take the lead in negotiating them, as it always has done, would ratify such conventions when her principal industrial competitors ratified them. I constantly impressed on this House that there should be no doubt as to our good faith and intentions, and that we should ratify them and have them approved by Parliament, ready to come into force when other nations ratified them.
I think that a very sound line on which to go, in the interest of the industries of this country and the workmen employed in them. I am perfectly certain—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not disagree with this and will do
this when he negotiates—that if he wants to get wages and hours on the Continent on a level with hours here, and to get hours reduced by international agreement, without a shadow of doubt his wise course is to proceed, as he, has begun, by international action and by the negotiation of a convention at Geneva, but to make it quite plain that the further reduction in the hours shall come into force when foreign countries adhere. Let us see how far a departure has been made from that. The first proposal—[Interruption.] I should have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would have had some interest in the negotiations conducted by the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: The right hon. Gentleman is protesting about interruptions, but the interruptions were made on his left.

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has asked for a patient hearing, and I think he ought to encourage it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The first proposal was for seven hours, and there were nine votes for it and 18 against; for the seven and a-half hours proposal, which was the British proposal, there were 11 votes for, and 13 against, if that is correct, the British Government and the Under-Secretary proposed at Geneva seven and a-half hours.

Mr. GRAHAM: I must clear this point up. I will deal with the matter if I speak again. All the discussions at Geneva were based on a bunk-to-bank basis.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I am not quite sure about that, and we must get agreement as to the facts. I think the one thing about which there was a consensus of agreement was that in determining the time spent in the mines and how you were to account for it, the practical way of counting the time was one winding time included. I think the seven and a-half hours' proposal is practically the proposal in the present Bill; at any rate, there we had the British proposals for seven and a-half hours and there were 11 votes for it and 13 against with three abstentions. For the proposal of the Netherlands Government of seven and a-half and seven and three-quarters
there were 12 for and 12 against. For the French Government's proposal of seven and three-quarter hours there nine votes for and 13 against. For the German proposal of seven and a-half hours and half an hour's break there were one vote for and 24 votes against. For the Czechoslovakian Government's proposal of seven and three-quarter hours and a quarter of an hour's break, there were 11 votes for, 13 against, and three abstentions; while for the eight hours' proposals there were 11 votes for, 13 against and three abstentions. I quote this, because if I am wrong in the detailed application it does not in the least vitiate the general argument which I am addressing to the Committee. The whole of the argument which the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary put at Geneva was that future progress in this matter, in order to be stable progress, must be by international agreement. If that was the line that he took up at Geneva and the line he instructed his Parliamentary Secretary to take at Geneva, I am sure that he will not be inconsistent in taking up one line at Geneva and taking up a different line here.
It is probably true that this Amendment ought to be withdrawn in order that the Amendment which the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) has drafted, might be discussed and a decision taken upon it. I wish to make it plain that the object of the Amendment is to emphasise the importance, first, of certainty. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to put words into the Amendment: "Subject to international agreement among the principal competing countries," if desired. I believe that that is the common desire, and my object is to make it plain that that is our desire, and the object of our Amendment, however ill the Amendment may have been worded. I think it is the line which the right hon. Gentleman has been pressing at Geneva, and I beg him to give an assurance that when we come to the right form of words we may have his sympathetic consideration of such a proposal.

Mr. POTTS: I have listened carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member who has just resumed his seat, and I can
assure him of one thing that so far as hours are concerned, the hours worked in mines in this country are longer than the hours worked in other countries in Europe. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member passed an Act in 1926 increasing the hours of work in the mines, and the President of the Board of Trade is now taking the same procedure in order to take off one half-hour. He is perfectly right in doing so. There are two factors to which I would draw attention, apart altogether from consideration of the provision of cheap coal, whether for sale in England or abroad. I refer in the first instance to the ill-effects of conditions on the lives of workmen in the mines and, secondly, I would call attention to accidents, fatal and otherwise, which are on the increase in our mines. I happened to be the individual who was called to give evidence in favour of shorter hours before the Royal Commission, and I had the honour of succeeding, because the Government took up the matter and reduced the eight hours to seven hours.
With respect to winding time, we have been told that it is only a matter of 25 minutes. From the time of starting to finishing it is more than 25 minutes, it is nearly twice 25 minutes. The average walking distance in the mines is over 1½ miles. It takes about a quarter of an hour to walk a mile on the surface and, of course, it takes longer to walk underground. Therefore, it must take 25 minutes at least to walk one way underground. The miners have to walk out as well as in. If the right hon. Gentleman will examine the recognised time for winding coal, recognised and fixed by the inspectors, he will find that it is far longer than he has stated. The actual time at the large collieries is 40 minutes more than the actual winding time.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is developing a general discussion, which will come later when we deal with hours.

Mr. POTTS: I agree.

The CHAIRMAN: The difficulty about this Amendment is that it seems not to amend the Act of 1926 so much as the Act of 1908.

Mr. POTTS: The hours ought to be reduced. The half hour reduction does not satisfy me. If I had my way and
I could rule everybody I would stand for the full hour being taken off. Why would I do that? I have in my hand a Report, an official Report, as to the heat in our mines. The heat in our mines is between 70 and 80 degrees, even in the roadways. I have made inspections where I have seen people working in more than 100 degrees of heat. Let me give one important factor dealing with the question of the half hour. The statement was made that the value of that half hour to the miners was 1s. 6d. It was made by the right hon. and gallant Member the late Secretary for Mines.

Commodore KING: I quoted from the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, that the decrease of half an hour in the working day would increase the cost of production of all coal by 1s. 6d. per ton.

Mr. POTTS: Whether the statement arose from this side of the Committee or the other, it is untrue. Let me try to put it right. I have looked into the matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment is to delete the words "During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926." That is the Amendment.

Mr. WALLHEAD: May I point out that hon. and right hon. Members on the other side have wandered around Geneva and Switzerland, and it seems to me that a fairly wide scope has been allowed—whether it was your intention or not. Therefore, I respectfully submit that it is not quite fair to pin the hon. Member down unduly after the latitude which has been allowed other hon. Members.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not intend to pin the hon. Member down too closely.

Mr. POTTS: May I respectfully submit that you allowed the right hon. Gentleman to deal with prices and with the production of coal, and I am only following his example.

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the hon. Member's attention to the fact that he must obey the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. POTTS: I do not intend to dispute your ruling, but I had certain things in
my mind in connection with this matter and I should have liked to have had a general discussion. But if you will not allow me to develop this subject now I must do it at another time. It is so important that I am bound to get it in somehow. May I say that if it is not cleared up, and we reach a certain date, it may mean trouble between the working people of this country and the Government and the coalowners. As I am not allowed to speak on one or two points which I intended to raise I will confine myself to saying that I hope the House will reject the Amendment and that hon. Members opposite will allow the half hour to come off without any demur. If they knew the conditions under which men have to work, the unfortunate conditions underground, I am sure, having regard to the increase in the loss of life which has taken place owing to the lengthening of the hours of working, they would be willing to agree to shortening the hours of our miners. These facts cannot be disputed. Not long ago I gave facts with respect to accidents and proved my statement from the reports of inspectors. I am only repeating them now, and I ask the Committee to agree to the half hour coming off because it is essential in the interests of human life.

Mr. DIXEY: I have listened with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) and I am only sorry that, apparently, his points are too wide for the scope of the Debate. I am not quite clear where the President of the Board of Trade now stands. I had hoped that he would have replied to the appeal which was made to him by the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to give us some sort of guarantee that however badly drafted the Amendment might be the point intended to be covered should be debated in a proper way—[Interruption]. It is no good hon. Members interrupting because I shall speak as long as I like, and I can assure them that there are quite a number of small points to be considered. As far as I see the position there are two points which should be considered. First, whether it is right to have a seven hour day permanently in this country after the expiration of the next 12 months, and, secondly, whether we should have a period under this Bill of a seven-and-a-half-hour day and then go back in 1931
to a period of seven hours. When we have Members and right hon. Members like the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and the right hon. Member for Hillhead—

The CHAIRMAN: I think I must ask for the assistance of the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) in regard to this Amendment. It is a manuscript Amendment, and I am in the same difficulty as the rest of the Committee—namely, that I cannot consider it until I have seen it.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: That is the Amendment now before us?

The CHAI RMAN: Yes. It is suggested as a temporary Amendment to a Section of the Act of 1926: but apparently it is to be permanent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I gather that the President of the Board of Trade referred to it and said that, technically, he thought in its actual form it might possibly be held to be out of order, and, subject to your permission, he made that point. But he took the further point, which no doubt the Secretary for Mines will explain, that the Amendment would be ineffective for its purpose because it was so drafted as to have a permanent effect, whereas it would have only a temporary effect, according to the duration of the two Acts mentioned in the Clause. I could not quite follow that point.

Mr. WALLHEAD: The right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) himself argued that the effect of the Amendment would be of a permanent character. If it is of a permanent character, then all our Debate is out of order.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: May I put the matter like this? The Amendment of the Government on the Paper has been put forward at the last moment and was totally unexpected. It has, therefore, been extremely hard to meet the new situation which has been created, and I suggest that while this Amendment is being considered we should be allowed to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

The CHAIRMAN: Assuming that this Amendment was agreed to and the words were taken out, the position would be that
Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the
words 'one hour,' there were therein substituted the words 'half an hour.'

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I realise the difficulty which you are in and which we are all in, but, thanks to your generosity, we have been able to have a sort of preliminary discussion on this Amendment, however obscure its terms. That has been of great value to the Committee in indicating what would be the form of Amendment which should appear on the Paper. I should be grateful to the Secretary for Mines if, with your permission, he would shortly explain to the Committee just what are the legal and technical difficulties in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I have been in the same difficulty as all hon. Members in dealing with this manuscript Amendment. I have now come to the conclusion that it is out of order. The next Amendment will allow discussion.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I fully realise the difficulty into which, not only you, but the whole Committee has got. Possibly this Amendment is not in order, but it is quite clear that it is the desire of the Committee to consider an Amendment which they can read, the terms of which they can understand and which they can debate with a knowledge of its form, and as the whole Committee is now absolutely at sea—I am the only Member who has succeeded in making a speech which apparently was in order on an Amendment that is out of order—I submit that the only way out of this ridiculous impasse is to report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and that I would like to move.

The CHAIRMAN: I must get this Amendment out of the way first.

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. I was speaking, quite properly as far as I know, when I was asked to resume my seat. I understood the President of the Board of Trade to say that, although there might be a technical objection to this particular Amendment, so far as he was concerned he would raise no point upon that. He encouraged us to go on with this Debate and himself made a speech on the Amendment.

The CHAIRMAN: I quite agree that he did, and when he used those words I was anxious to find out what was the meaning of the Amendment. As I have
said, it is very difficult to understand Amendments handed in in this way, but now, having taken this Amendment into consideration, I am under the impression that it is out of order.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I am very sorry to have been out of the House while these points have been raised. The Amendment of the hon. Member would delete from the beginning of the Government Clause the words, "During the continuance of the Act of 1926." Under Section 3 of the Act of 1908 there was a provision to work 60 hours of overtime for a year, that is an additional hour on 60 days of the year, on the basis of the Act of 1908, which related to an eight hours day. The only effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be that, after the expiration of the Act of 1926, namely in July of 1931, instead of its being possible under the Act of 1908 to work an additional hour on 60 days of the year, it would be possible to work only an additional half hour. I suggest, as the Seconder of the Amendment plainly indicated, that that would be a permanent Amendment and inconsistent with the terms of the Bill, and therefore out of order; but I said expressly to the chairman that I had no desire to raise an objection on a technicality, and that I would rather take the ground that the Amendment was hopeless in the sense that it simply would not work at all.
I suggest that it would be very much better to go on with the two Amendments on the Paper in the names of the hon. Member for North Midlothian (Major Colville) and another hon. Member, and, by agreement with the chairman, take the discussion on two points, namely, as to whether this half hour should be taken off, and with that, the question whether we should average the working time over a week or a fortnight. On this second point I express no opinion at this stage. If the Committee will allow me, I propose to speak later on it, perhaps on Thursday, if convenient. As regards the hon. Member's Amendment that is the state of affairs. It would, perhaps, be for our general convenience if the Amendment were either negatived or withdrawn and we now proceeded to the wider issue.

The CHAIRMAN: I have come to the conclusion that the Amendment is not in order. Mr. Beaumont. Captain Balfour.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: What Amendment is being called now? An Amendment which I submit is entirely in order is one to leave out the words, "the Coal Mines Act of 1926."

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Earlier in the evening there was an Amendment moved, on Clause 9, to leave out the words, "During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926." That was the original Amendment moved. Then a further Amendment was suggested to leave out the words, "During the continuance of." If my memory serves me right, you said, Mr. Chairman, that you were putting the words, "During the continuance of," so as to preserve the right of the Committee and of other Members, to go on to the further question of the Coal Mines Act of 1926. The point which I wish to raise is this: Are we dealing at present with the original Amendment, or with only the first part of the original Amendment?

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) he would have heard me say that I had saved the Amendment to which the hon. Member now refers. That is the Amendment which I am now taking.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 13, line 30, to leave out from the word "of" to the word "section" in line 31, and to insert instead thereof the words "Part I of this Act."
The object of the Amendment is to suspend the ending of the new hours provision and to make it coincide with the termination of Part I of this Act. Speeches from the benches opposite and the speech of the President of the Board of Trade on the Second Reading, have shown definitely that Part I of this Measure and the hours provision are mixed up to such a degree that it is impossible to separate them. The object of Part I is to make the alteration of hours possible. The whole of Part II depends on the operation of Part I and it seems stupid in the extreme that whereas, as the Bill stands, Part II will come to an end in 1931, the part of the Bill on which it depends, and which makes provision for it, is to go on for another two years.
No one suggests that the last word with regard to hours will be said when this Bill is passed, and hon. Members opposite feel that just as strongly as we do, though probably they look at the matter from a different standpoint. There is no question of this being a permanent Bill. Owing to the arrangement into which the Government have seen fit to enter, we cannot tell, when we are discussing this Part of the Bill, exactly when Part I will come to an end but, whenever it does some to an end, it is surely more reasonable and convenient that the two things should be coterminous. If the Government wish to bring these hours conditions under review earlier than the date at present in Part I, they can, if this Amendment is accepted, move to alter the date, when we come to discuss it in Part I. There is nothing in the Amendment which lays it down that the hours conditions shall go on one day or minute longer than the Government would like to arrange, but the two parts of the Bill which are admittedly interdependent should be reviewed at the same time. We think it would be silly to review the one without the other or to bring the one to an end without the other.

Lieut. - Colonel HENEAGE: This Amendment is an important one, and it shows the muddle into which the Committee is getting owing to the action of the Government. May I point out the difficulty in taking into account Part I, with which we have not dealt, in connection with Part II. Part I is the coal-owners' part of the Bill introduced by a Socialist Member. It is, as the Government say, the means of finding the necessary money to work Part II. Part I places a burden on the consumers of this country. It is entirely in favour of the coalowners and against the consumers, and as the representative of an agricultural constituency I protest against agricultural labourers being forced by a Socialist Government to pay for the export of coal.

Mr. COCKS: On a point of Order. Is the hon. and gallant Member in order in discussing Part I?

The CHAIRMAN: I am listening to the introduction of the hon. and gallant Member carefully and waiting to hear whether he is in order or not.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: The hon. Member's point raises the question of the
Liberal party's share in supporting the Government, but I am afraid I would not be in order in pursuing the present relation of those parties. But as far as Part II is concerned, I ask does it or does it not impose fresh burdens on the agricultural community? We are very anxious that the Socialist Government should not place fresh burdens on the agricultural labourer but apparently both parts of this Bill increase the cost to the working-class households of the country and it is the Socialist party who are doing that. They ought to wake up to what their present masters are compelling them to do. No doubt a Socialist would point out that in the country districts the people do not buy very much coal, but that does not alter the fact that under this Bill they will have to pay more for it, and the object of the Amendment is to get a statement from the President of the Board of Trade as to how matters now stand in relation to the increased cost to the consumers. We have a right to know.

The CHAIRMAN: The Amendment which is now before the Committee deals with the continuance of certain provisions and not with the price of coal.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: With great respect, Sir, I think it has been indicated by the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that both Parts I and II will raise the cost to the consumer.

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment has nothing to do with raising the cost to the consumer. The Amendment which was proposed from the hon. and gallant Member's side of the Committee is that during the continuance of Part I these conditions laid down in Part II shall continue, and we must confine ourselves to that point.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It is quite clear that at this stage we shall not be able to raise the question of the cost to the consumer. I should like to add that the difficulties in which this Committee is placed at this stage are entirely difficulties which the Government have brought on themselves.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I must not at this period become involved in these pleasantries which brighten the Debate, but come at once to the simple facts of this Amendment. Strictly speaking, it is very nearly on all fours with the Amend-
ment already submitted to the Committee except that on this occasion I think it is probably in order on technicalities, but that, of course, Mr. Chairman, is entirely a matter for you. On the simple merits, what the hon. and gallant Member seeks to achieve is that during the continuance of Part I, which contains the marketing proposals of this Bill, Section 3 of the Act of 1908 shall continue as if there were substituted half-an-hour for the one hour in the 1908 legislation.
I have already pointed out on the previous Amendment that the 1903 Act, in Section 3, provides on 60 days for 60 hours of overtime—one hour additional on 60 days. The hon. and gallant Member proposes during the continuance of Part I of this Bill to reduce the overtime permissible under that Section of the Act of 1908 to half-an-hour, but he will observe that on the expiry of the period of Part I of this Bill the only effect would be to revert to the full hour, that is the 60 hours, spread over a year, under the 1908 legislation. I have already indicated, either on the Second Reading or in some other part of the Debate, that we are prepared to limit Part I of the Bill to three years, because quite frankly, if the amalgamations come into operation, the arrangements will have to be modified in any case; but quite apart from the duration of Part I, this Amendment, like the preceding one is in no way, either technically or in any other way, a method of dealing with this problem and would only land the industry and everybody else in hopeless confusion. I can only repeat what I suggested on the previous occasion, namely, that we must resist this Amendment, and I would ask the Committee to pass to the discussion of Amendments in the name of other hon. Members which will offer a more effective method.

Major DAVIES: There is one point that the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked. This particular Amendment, fortunately, appears to be in order and arguable, and that is a relief after the sandbank of manuscript Amendments in which we have been floundering. In this Amendment, which links up this Clause with Part I of the Bill, and is one of the only life-lines which the right hon. Gentleman is going to have to give
him a temporary and precarious hold on to that portion of the Bill which he values so highly, but which in due course will be jettisoned by Members below the Gangway, unless there is some other Amendment which will form the function of a dovetail, there will be an opportunity of anchoring down something which he values and which he stands in grave danger of losing. If this Bill can be regarded as a coherent whole, there must be some practical point of balance between the different parts. It is not in order to go into Part I of the Bill now, but inasmuch as the Amendment refers to the period during which Part I is in operation, I suppose it is in order to consider whether it is or is not an advantage to cement that connection and link the operations of the one Clause now before us to the one to which it refers. That is a distinctly arguable point.
It is common to both sides that we are face to face with a very difficult problem. Figures and statistics have been brought forward on an earlier occasion during the afternoon to show the difficulties which have faced those who have been trying to deal with it from an international viewpoint. Nobody is supposing that any decision that we can reach here in connection with this Bill is going to be finality, because these provisions will, we hope, be ultimately amended in the direction in which the wisest minds in this country think the best, in common with representatives of the other coal producing countries of the world. Therefore, from that point of view, these provisions must necessarily be of a temporary nature.
The provisions in Part I of the Bill, to which this Amendment seeks to link up this particular Clause, are admitted to be of a temporary nature of three years. It is well worth consideration whether this Amendment should not be accepted from this point of view. It preserves the general balance of the Bill, and it secures to the President of the Board of Trade the surety that he will be able, when the time comes, to play his cards in connection with Part I as well as he has played them badly hitherto in connection with these very dangerous poker players in the game in which he has become inveigled. It keeps this Measure in a temporary position, so that at any
time when an international discussion makes it desirable, we shall find that it hangs together as one.

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. As I understand, Mr. Young, you found the last Amendment out of order. This Amendment is practically on the same principle as the last Amendment, and the President of the Board of Trade agrees with me that, if the last Amendment was out of order, this Amendment is also out of order.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: On that point, there seems to me to be an essential difference. This is a temporary Amendment of the Act of 1908, and it is related to Part I of the Bill, which is itself temporary, and therefore is in order. The previous Amendment was on a permanent basis, and was therefore out of order.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Since the effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the 60 hours' overtime which the colliery managers may permit their workmen to work during any one year down to 60 half-hours, I suggest that my right hon. Friend might accept the Amendment and teach the hon. Gentlemen opposite a lesson.

Captain PEAKE: On a point of Order. It is said that Section 3 of the 1908 Act permits an extra hour to be worked on CO days in the year. In point of fact, the 1926 Act—

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order.

Mr. DIXEY: Do I understand, Mr. Young, that you find the Amendment is in order?

The CHAIRMAN: Yes.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: As the unfortunate parent of the last child which died an irregular death after a life of an hour and a-half, I may make a remark about the regular infant. Under these Clauses, the period for the 7½ hours is temporary, and as it must be temporary during the continuance of Part 1, what is to happen when Part I ceases to operate? Part I provides, as I understand it, the sinews of war—or of commerce. That is why the Mover of the Amendment has put down an Amendment which has the effect of making the 7½ hours last just as long as, and no longer
than, the continuance of Part I of this Bill. The whole thing is so complicated, and there are so many Sections of other Acts involved, that it is impossible when these Amendments have to be put in at the last moment to address one's mind adequately to the issues. The President of the Board of Trade seems to have the faculty of keeping a photographic list of Statutes in his brain, but those of us who are less fortunate than he take some time to address our minds to the full issues involved. Only since this morning have we known that it would be necessary for us to try to grasp the complications of these Statutes, and at the last moment we have had to bring forward manuscript Amendments, to the great inconvenience of the Committee as well as of ourselves. It would be a great convenience to us if the learned Attorney-General could be persuaded to rise to explain to us what these Statutes definitely mean, how they are correlated, and what are the effects of the Amendment. It would be a great convenience to us, and would not be a waste of time.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I rise to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). If, as the President of the Board of Trade says, this Amendment will have the effect of reducing the overtime which can be worked in any given 12 months from 60 hours to 30 hours, then I am in favour of the Amendment and would like to know why the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept it. Hon. Members opposite have tried to make the hours as long as they could, but if by an inadvertence they have done the opposite—

Mr. BEAUMONT: On a point of Order. Is it in order for the hon. Member to assume that we do not know the implications of our own Amendments?

The CHAIRMAN: It is perfectly in order to assume that.

Mr. WALLHEAD: There is no assumption on my part at all. It seems to be the accepted opinion of the House and of those in charge of the Bill. Even the late Secretary for Mines does not seem to object to the suggestion that that is the meaning of the Amendment. I suppose he has only just discovered the damage his own party are doing to their case. Hon. Members opposite do not
understand what they are doing, they do not understand how the thing works. I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept the Amendment, and if he does, I will do all I can to get Members into the Lobby in support of it.

Commodore KING: Seeing that the hon. Member challenges me as to the meaning of the Amendment, I feel I must, much against my will, say a word or two upon it.

Mr. WALLHEAD rose—

Commodore KING: Do not wave me down when I rise to answer you.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I really did not challenge you about it. I merely said that apparently you did not understand it.

Commodore KING: I should like to assure the hon. Member that until the Amendment was read out from the Chair I did not know of it. That is the worst of this rush into which we are being plunged. I understand that the Amendment was not even drafted when the House met to-day, and it has been forced upon us by the action of the President of the Board of Trade moving to leave out Part I. With regard to the actual Amendment before us, I have looked into the actual effect of legislation by reference in previous Acts, and, after my experience, I make an appeal to the Attorney-General to explain this matter still further. This is really a question for the Law Officers of the Crown, but I am quite prepared, after the challenge of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Wallhead), to attempt an explanation myself, although I am sure my explanation would not be equal to that of the Attorney-General. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] This is a matter of great substance, and before I try to explain this legislation by reference, I wish to say to the President of the Board of Trade that I think the advice that was given to him from this side of the Committee was kindly meant. Although the wording of this Amendment may not be quite right, at any rate it is a safeguard, and it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to have some hold over his temporary comrades. It appears to hon. Members on this side of the House that
the President of the Board of Trade is going to be jockeyed out of his position by waving aside Part I, and carrying through what the Liberal party require. After that the right hon. Gentleman may find that the Liberal party are going to jockey him out of the position he has taken up of carrying Part I.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that is relevant to the Amendment we are now discussing.

Commodore KING: I think it is necessary that there should be some mention of Part I, because the proposals we are discussing would fail to operate if there was no Part I to which they referred. I hope we shall have an explanation from the Attorney-General. I notice that the Solicitor-General is also present, and we have now present three Law Officers of the Crown. I never like an amateur to explain an Act of Parliament, but as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil has challenged me as to whether I knew what this proposal means I will explain the matter. We have here one of those objectionable practices of legislation by reference. The Clause reads:
During the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if for the words 'one hour' there were therein substituted the words half an hour.'
If we turn to the Act of 1926, we see that it is
An Act to amend temporarily the Coal Mines Acts, 1887 to 1919, with respect to the hours of employment below ground.
Unfortunately, that Act of 1926 only legislated by reference. It said:
During the continuance of this Act, Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, shall have effect as if the words 'on not more than 60 days in any calendar year' and Sub-section (2) thereof were omitted therefrom.
That, again, is legislation by reference. It so happened that I had the reference with me, and I shall be happy to hand it to the Attorney-General if he would like to deal with it. Section 3 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908, says:
The time fixed by this Act as the time during which the workmen in a mine may be below ground for the purpose of their work, and are going to and from their work, may be extended as respects any man by the owner, agent or manager of the mine on not more than 60 days in any calendar year by not more than one hour a day.
As far as I understand it, the Act of 1926 omitted the words "on not more than 60 days in any calendar year," and that allowed the hours to be extended on every day of the year by one hour. That is the effect of this legislation by reference. I quite agree that the wording of the present Amendment would not carry out the purpose which my hon. Friends desire, but I think that most Members of the House, on considering the matter, will realise that there is a great deal of substance in this Amendment. It is going to be very upsetting indeed to the whole of the coal industry to have the working hours altered in April of next year, while the reorganisation scheme which the Government are seeking to impose upon them is to be continued for a period of three years. All these disturbances and turmoils in the coalmining industry do not make for good and efficient working or for industrial peace, and I firmly believe that, if only the hours suggested under the present scheme could be extended to cover the whole working time of the reorganisation scheme proposed under this Bill, it would be very useful, and would receive the assent of all thinking members of the Minors' Federation and the miners' leaders throughout the country. I think that they are realising that. The only way in which success is going to be achieved in industry is by having a certain amount of continuity, a certain amount of peace, and a certain amount of stability, on which the industry can be built up. I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to give careful consideration to this Amendment. We think that it is a good Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that it is not, he will at least admit that there is some merit in it for the good of the industry, and perhaps he may see his way to accept it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I have listened with very great patience to a very large number of speeches on all sides of the Committee on this most important Amendment. I propose to ask one or two questions. I do not think we need expect an answer from the Attorney-General. He comes in the category of not genuinely seeking work. The President of the Board of Trade has spent so much time in asking for a full discussion and then getting the Closure, that I do not think I need worry with him. May
I come to the real personage who is controlling these Debates? I refer to the Father of the House of Commons.

Mr. SULLIVAN: To what Amendment is the hon. Member speaking?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thought the hon. Member possibly knew—

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want an answer to my question.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member says that he is going to ask some questions. I am waiting to hear them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I would read the Amendment, but it mean that I should have to go back over some other ground, and I may prevent the Committee giving proper attention to the matter. The Amendment is to omit the words "the Coal Mines Act, 1926." I do not know whether I need read the whole of it, because, from the few observations I have heard from the other side, they seem to be gloriously innocent of any knowledge of the Act, and I do not think in the time at my disposal I could possibly get the knowledge into the heads of many of them. Beyond that, I am afraid I am not going to get very much help from the Gentleman who is paid so much respect by the Committee, and whose opinion we should all like to hear upon the Act, because I believe he has changed it recently. That is the hon. Gentleman who looks after the mining industry. What I really wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), whose distinguished position as Father of the House enables him to exercise an extraordinary control over the Socialist party—we all know the control he has over his own party—

The CHAIRMAN: I really must ask the hon. Member to ask his questions or to deal with the Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The question I was trying to put, only I have been interrupted several times, is whether the right hon. Gentleman has given the Government leave to withdraw the Coal Mines Act?

The CHAIRMAN: That is really not the Question before the Committee. The Amendment moved from that side of the Committee is to take that Act out.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am very sorry if I put it wrongly. I intended to ask: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept this Amendment in the way that you, Sir, have just put it? I believe, if this goes out, Part I goes in. I think you have ruled that we must not discuss Part I, so I will not do it in any way whatever. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell us—after all this is the House of Commons—whether he will accept this bit of Part I coming in here or not. It is a most important question. Before we decide a vital matter such as this we ought to be allowed to know publicly what has really happened as far as this Amendment is concerned. I am not blaming hon. Gentlemen opposite for the difficulties of their position, but we have had very little information to-day as to what has really been going on. Surely, the Leader of the Liberal party—

The CHAIRMAN: I must call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that his speech should have some relevancy to this matter.

Mr. WESTWOOD: If an hon. Member has been called to order on three occasions, is it not in order for you to proceed to call upon him to resume his seat?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must leave that to me.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I quite realise that this Amendment involves a very difficult and technical discussion, and for that reason I will simply repeat my request, that we should have a definite, clear and simple explanation from the right hon. Gentleman who is controlling the House in this matter.

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: On a point of Order. Is it in order to put in the words "Part I of this Act" when we come to that part of the Amendment, in view of the fact that we have no knowledge of Part I, which has not been before the Committee. I think that we cannot discuss that matter.

The CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled that it is in order.

Mr. ATKINSON: I cannot help thinking that there is a little confusion in regard to this Amendment. The Clause, as drawn, will cease to have any effect
next year when the Coal Mines Act, 1926, comes to an end. The position will be that the power to extend the working hours will be limited to 60 days in the year, and the object of the Amendment is really to continue the state of control during the continuance of the first part of this Act. I should press for the Amendment to be accepted for the reason that I intend to put down an Amendment to add
and as if the words 'are not more than 60 days in any year' were omitted.
If that further Amendment be accepted, the Amendment under discussion would become perfectly intelligible and useful. As it is, it is, I quite agree, a useless Amendment. It appears to me that when the Coal Mines Act, 1926, comes to an end the power of an owner to extend the working hours will be limited to half an hour on 60 days of the year, but, if you have a further Amendment extending the working time on every day in the year, the two Amendments together would do what I rather imagine everybody would like to do—extend the status quo so long as the Part I of the Act is in operation. I suggest that this Amendment should be considered on the basis that if it were passed there would be a further Amendment moved which would make it effective to extend the status quo for a further period of three years. But the one without the other would be useless, and I press this Amendment on the assumption that there would appear on the Paper a consequential Amendment which would make it a very useful and effective one.

Sir BASIL PETO: The suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) was an admirable one. [Interruption.] The point I want to make is even simpler. I realise that the confusion caused by putting Part II before Part I is very natural. I would like to call attention—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: the chairman is not allowed to enter into the joke, but the result of it is that I cannot hear what the hon. Member is saying.

Mr. DIXEY: On a point of Order. Large numbers of Members are anxious to speak, and I hope time will not be wasted by laughter on the other side of the Committee.

Sir B. PETO: The President of the Board of Trade clearly indicated that he was in favour of the principle underlying the Amendment which has been moved, as he told us on one occasion that he intended to limit the operation of Part I to certainly not more than three years. I think there is general agreement on all sides of the Committee that it would be desirable if we could find appropriate words to make the operation of Part I and of Part II coterminous. That would, obviously, be better than having a somewhat nebulous undertaking from the President of the Board of Trade that he intends at some future time, if ever we come to discuss Part I at all, to limit the operation of that part of the Bill. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's admirably clear speech was to the effect that by omitting the words proposed to be omitted, namely, "the Coal Mines Act, 1926," the mover of the Amendment would completely upset the purpose in mind. I suggest, as I am always desirous of assisting and promoting intelligent debate in Committee and the quicker despatch of business in the House, that possibly the right hon. Gentleman might see his way—as we have had no explanation from the Attorney-General—to accept it if we leave in the words "the Coal Mines Act, 1926" and simply add the words: "and Part I of this Act." We should then maintain the position in the Clause as it is and also make it a condition of the continuance of Part II of the Act that Part I should also be in operation, and that would make the Clause clearer. It maintains the words that have been moved in the Amendment, and it maintains what the President of

the Board of Trade has told us is absolutely necessary to be maintained in this Clause, namely, the words "the Coal Mines Act, 1926."

Why should not the operation of Part II be dependent upon the continuance of the Coal Mines Act, 1926, and also be dependent upon the continuance of Part I of this Bill? If we can have that, the President of the Board of Trade will have what he wants and my hon. Friend who has moved the present Amendment will have what he wants and what we want on this side, namely, a clear undertaking in the Act that these two parts shall go together, and that one shall not continue for a single day after the other has ceased to operate. It is clear from the speeches made by the President of the Board of Trade that the reason why he wanted to put Part I before Part II was that he wanted to be sure that the arrangements by which Part II would be financed should be in the Act. In this Amendment we want to be sure that Part I will operate so long as Part II operates, so that we shall not have Part II hanging in the air, as a terrible incubus over the whole coal trade of the country, if Part I is not operating. Therefore, the President of the Board of Trade might well accept the suggestion which I make.

Mr. DIXEY rose—

Mr. W. GRAHAM rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 296; Noes, 162.

Division No. 141.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cape, Thomas


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bevan, Aneurin (Enbw Vale)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Birkett, W. Norman
Charleton, H. C.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Blindell, James
Chater, Daniel


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Church, Major A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowen, J. W.
Clarke, J. S.


Ammon, Charles George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cluse, W. S.


Angell, Norman.
Broad, Francis Alfred
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Arnott, John
Bromfield, William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Aske, Sir Robert
Bromley, J.
Compton, Joseph


Ayles, Walter
Brooke, W.
Cove, William G.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brothers, M.
Daggar, George


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Dallas, George


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dalton, Hugh


Batey, Joseph
Burgess, F. G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Benn, Rt. Hon Wedgwood
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Devlin, Joseph


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Dickson, T.


Benson, G.
Cameron, A. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Dukes, C.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Duncan, Charles
Lees, J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Edge, Sir William
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Edmunds, J. E.
Logan, David Gilbert
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sandham, E.


Egan, W. H.
Longden, F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Scrymgeour, E.


England, Colonel A.
Lowth, Thomas
Scurr, John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sexton, James


Foot, Isaac
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Freeman, Peter
McElwee, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McKinlay, A.
Sherwood, G. H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacLaren, Andrew
Shield, George William


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gibbins, Joseph
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shinwell, E.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gill, T. H.
McShane, John James
Simmons, C. J.


Gillett, George M.
M alone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Glassey, A. E.
Mansfield, W.
Sinkinson, George


Gossling, A. G.
March, S.
Sitch, Charles H.


Gould, F.
Marcus, M.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marley, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maxton, James
Snell, Harry


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Melville, Sir James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.
Sorensen, R.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Millar, J. D.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mills, J. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Milner, J.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Montague, Frederick
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Harbison, T. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Strauss, G. R.


Harbord, A.
Morley, Ralph
Sullivan, J.


Hardie, George D.
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sutton, J. E.


Harris, Percy A.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Haycock, A. W.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Thurtle, Ernest


Hayday, Arthur
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Tillett, Ben


Hayes, John Henry
Muff, G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Toole, Joseph


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Murnin, Hugh
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Nathan, Major H. L.
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Herriotts, J.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Turner, B.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Vaughan, D. J.


Hoffman, P. C.
Oldfield, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, Daniel
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Walker, J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wallace, H. W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palin, John Henry
Watkins, F. C.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Palmer, E. T.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Isaacs, George
Perry, S. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Johnston, Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
West, F. R.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Westwood, Joseph


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
White, H. G.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pole, Major D. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, T. (York Don Valley)


Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Knight, Holford
Richards, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wise, E. F.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ritson, J.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lawson, John James
Rosbotham, D. S. T.



Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rothschild, J. de
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Albery, Irving James
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.




Atholl, Duchess of
Ganzoni, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atkinson, C.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Poto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Gower, Sir Robert
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beaumont, M. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Remer, John R.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bird, Ernest Roy
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bracken, B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Salmon, Major I.


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry C.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Iveagh, Countess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Chapman, Sir S.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colville, Major D. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Thomson, Sir F.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Culverweil, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davies, Maj. GEO. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dixey, A. C.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wells, Sydney R.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Meller, R. J.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon Sir W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Womersley, W. J.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fermoy, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)



Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
O'Neill, Sir H.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 295; Noes, 166.

Division No. 142.]
AYES.
[11.9 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Blindell, James
Cluse, W. S.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowen, J. W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Compton, Joseph


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cove, William G.


Alpass, J. H.
Bromfield, William
Daggar, George


Ammon, Charles George
Bromley, J.
Dallas, George


Angell, Norman
Brooke, W.
Dalton, Hugh


Arnott, John
Brothers, M.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Aske, Sir Robert
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ayles, Walter
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgess, F. G.
Devlin, Joseph


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dickson, T.


Barnes, Alfred John
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Batey, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Dukes, C.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Duncan, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cameron, A. G.
Ede, James Chuter


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cape, Thomas
Edge, Sir William


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Edmunds, J. E.


Benson, G.
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Chater, Daniel
Egan, W. H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Church, Major A. G.
Elmley, Viscount


Birkett, W. Norman
Clarke, J. S.
England, Colonel A.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sanders, W. S.


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sandham, E.


Freeman, Peter
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sawyer, G. F.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Scrymgeour, E.


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McElwee, A.
Scurr, John


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McEntee, V. L.
Sexton, James


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McKinlay, A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gill, T. H.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gillett, George M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shield, George William


Glassey, A. E.
McShane, John James
Shillaker, J. F.


Gossling, A. G.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shinwell, E.


Gould, F.
Mansfield, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
March, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marcus, M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gray, Milner
Markham, S. F.
Sinkinson, George


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marley, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mathers, George
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Melville, Sir James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Messer, Fred
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Middleton, G.
Snell, Harry


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Millar, J. D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mills, J. E.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Harbison, T. J.
Milner, J.
Sorensen, R.


Harbord, A.
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hardie, George D.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stephen, Campbell


Harris, Percy A.
Morley, Ralph
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Strauss, G. R.


Haycock, A. W.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Sullivan, J.


Hayday, Arthur
Mort, D. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Hayes, John Henry
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Muff, G.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Tillett, Ben


Herriotts, J.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Toole, Joseph


Hoffman, P. C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tout, W. J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Noel Baker, P. J.
Townend, A. E.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Oldfield, J. R.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Horrabin, J. F.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Turner, B.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Viant, S. P.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Palin, John Henry
Walker, J.


Isaacs, George
Palmer, E. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Johnston, Thomas
Perry, S. F.
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Pole, Major D. G.
West, F. R.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Potts, John S.
Westwood, Joseph


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Price, M. P.
White, H. G.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pybus, Percy John
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kelly, W. T.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Kennedy, Thomas
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Richards, R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawrence, Susan
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le Spring)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lawson, John James
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Roberts, Ht. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Leach, W.
Romeril, H. G.
Wise, E. F.


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rothschild, J. de
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Lloyd, C. Ellis
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Logan, David Gilbert
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Longbottom, A. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)



Longden, F.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Albery, Irving James
Atholl, Duchess of
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Atkinson, C.
Balniel, Lord




Beaumont, M. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bracken, B.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Brass, Captain Sir William
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hacking, Ht. Hon. Douglas H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hammersley, S. S.
Salmon, Major I.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, Henry C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butt, Sir Alfred
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Skelton, A. N.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colville, Major D. J.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Thomson, Sir F.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Tinne, J. A.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol. West)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lymington, Viscount
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faveraham)
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dixey, A. C.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Wells, Sydney R.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Meller, R. J.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torguay)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Womersley, W. J.


Ferguson, Sir John
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fermoy, Lord
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Fielden, E. B.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert



Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Captain Sir George Bowyer and Sir George Penny.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Peake, Capt. Osbert



Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Question put, and agreed to.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Order read for Consideration of Lords Reason for insisting on certain Amendments disagreed to by Commons.

Message from the Lords:

The Lords insist upon the amendments proposed by them in page 5, line 16; page 11, line 17; page 11, line 42; page 12, line 20; page 12, line 22; page 13, line 30; page 13, line 31; and page 14, line 13 for the following Reason:

Because they consider that, before passing permanent legislation, it is desirable that an opportunity shall be afforded to
Parliament for further examining questions relating to unemployment insurance.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I beg to move, "That the Lords Reason for insisting on certain Amendments disagreed to by Commons, be now considered."
Not much need be said at this stage of this controversy, but what is said has to be perfectly plain. You, Sir, when the Bill came back amended in the first instance, announced that certain Amendments were privileged. The House, in the exercise of its own judgment, which it always has done, decided to select from these Amendments certain ones regarding which it consented to waive its privilege. As regards certain others, it decided to do no such thing. One of those which it reserved was perfectly clearly a question of Privilege. It
was an interference with our rights to determine how the money of the country should be spent, and the House, by a satisfactory majority, decided not to waive the Privilege, but to send the Bill back with the Lords Amendment deleted. The usual thing, the precedent, I think, almost without exception, is that when that is done, the House of Lords agrees, and waives the whole thing. To-night we are informed by the House of Lords that so long as there is a Labour Government in office in this House—[Interruption]—it is to regard none of our Privileges, but is to sit and criticise our Bills as a sub-committee of the Tory party. We take note of this.
I admit that the decision of the Lords has put the Government in a fix. If it were meant to do so, then I give them the great satisfaction of admitting that they have succeeded. If we were to drop the Bill, and pass it into the category of Bills awaiting the operation of the Parliament Act, the finance of unemployment insurance would be completely bankrupt, and within the course of 10 or 14 days, there would be no money in the fund from which to pay unemployment benefit. There is another situation. In a matter of Privilege it is not a question of whether they agree with us in substance or not. It does not matter how the House of Commons uses its Privilege; our contention is that so long as that Privilege is legitimately used, the action of the House of Lords must be regarded by the House of Commons as a breach of its privileges. If we had suspended this Bill at this stage, we would have had all the benefits contained in the Bill obliterated, the harsh administration of which we have complained for years would have been re-established—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] The old Act, with its fourth statutory condition, would have remained in force. By making this Bill one of the first of what I believe is going to be a solid body of Bills awaiting the three Sessions proposal—if the action of the House of Lords the other day is any indication of a policy—by making this Bill the first of that phalanx, every benefit of the Bill, every blessing given to unemployed men and women, would have been suspended.
Therefore we have to consider some other way of handling the situation. We waive no privilege. We state now, as emphatically as a statement can be made, that the Lords in insisting on that Amendment encroached upon the privileges of the House of Commons. If we were to stand on that and take no action it would mean that we were going to send on to the Poor Law thousands of people who will be kept off the Poor Law by this Bill. We therefore propose to amend the Amendment of the Lords. We propose to amend the Amendment of the Lords not simply because we want to amend it, but because the Lords Amendment is absolutely unworkable. It is another illustration that the Lords, as a reviewing assembly, as a revising assembly, cannot be trusted when there is a Labour Government. The Amendment which I wish to ask the House of Commons to amend is that to limit the operation of the Bill to 12 months. That means, as a matter of actual working, of administrative effect, to limit it to nine months, because a new Bill would have to be drafted and all sorts of inquiries made to enable a Bill to be passed before the ending of 12 months. The objections are obvious. The new administrative machinery will hardly be in working order by the end of 12 months. There would be the difficulty of the efficient working of a new Act, involving great changes in machinery, under the shadow of a time limit. The experience of 1927 shows that it takes at least two years to secure full results, and a limit of nine months is absolutely absurd and would not be proposed by any ore with a practical knowledge of the difficulties of the situation. Moreover the Amendment imposes a time limit which is finished before certain important changes made by this Bill have come into operation, for instance, the change relating to young persons under sixteen cannot come into operation until 1st April next year. This Bill becoming an Act of Parliament with the Amendments of the Lords upon it will cease to be in existence one day before the provisions of this Section come into force. The Government proposal, therefore, is that the time should be changed from March, 1931, to 30th June, 1933.
This gives sufficient time for the administrative and adjudicating machinery
involved to come fully into operation. It gives time for the Act to be treated as a reasonable experiment, whether its provisions are wise or foolish. At the end of three years the Public Assistance Committees will have shown what they can do, the process of rationalisation will have got through its preliminary period, and a clearer view will be possible of the staple industries of the country. In short, full experience will have been gained of the working of the new Act, and, if revision proves to be necessary, it can be undertaken in a calmer and clearer atmosphere. For these reasons—first of all, in defence of the privileges of this House, and, secondly, so that, when the Act is passed, it may be a piece of practical, useful, workable legislation—I move this Resolution.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have allowed the Prime Minister to go far beyond the Resolution and to discuss the reasons for the various Amendments which he proposes to make in the original Lords Amendments. I think that, with the approval of the House, it would be much the best way of dealing with this matter, if the whole question of the merits of the various Amendments were discussed on this Motion; that then, if the House be agreeable, the various Amendments should be put, that we should not have a repetition of the discussion but that, if the House sees fit, we should proceed directly to divide on the various Amendments.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are always very glad to see the Prime Minister back again in the House of Commons. We feel much safer when he is here; we know what he is doing; and certainly I think we owe him a debt, in that, with his many grave preoccupations, he should have treated us to such a formidable Parliamentary statement on the subject of the Lords Amendments which are now before the House. Let me say at the very outset, on behalf of His Majesty's Opposition, that in the main we commend the course which the right hon. Gentleman has decided to adopt. The course that he has chosen, and the mood which he has displayed in relation to the Second Chamber, are very much better, wiser and sounder than we have been accustomed to from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with the assistance of the Attorney-General, who have
endeavoured to wipe out the other branch of the Legislature and rule it completely out of all share in our public affairs.
I have mocked at the Government, and shall do so again, when I have seen them run humbly to the footstool of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). I have mocked at that because, undoubtedly, it does carry with it a considerable element of humiliation when you see the Government of the country anxious to obtain and enlist the co-operation of a right hon. Gentleman who on frequent occasions has delivered studied insults at honourable and valued Members on the opposite benches. I have never attempted, and should never attempt, to criticise the Government when they show a just and proper deference to the other branch of the Legislature. That is quite a different thing, and on the whole I am bound to say, while in no way prejudging the fate which the proposals that the Government are now making will meet elsewhere, that it is a great improvement upon the mood and the treatment of constitutional affairs by them which we have witnessed during the present Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman said of the House of Lords that a Labour Government could never receive, or expect to receive, fair play from them. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen must use the keen intelligence which is given to them, and endeavour to practise some sense of detachment in judging of our constitutional and political conditions. Has ever a party—a minority party, a minority in this House—been treated with more generosity—[Interruption.] If they had not been a Labour party, their numerical position in this House could never have enabled them to rule and sway, quite contrary, in many cases, to the feelings of the majority of the people of this country, so many grave and important events. What have they to complain about? [Interruption] I do not understand this sudden eager, almost furious, attempt to work up a passionate sense of grievance. They are the favoured, pampered darlings— [Interruption]—a minority Government every member of whose majority is elected three times as easily as a member of the Liberal party; and then they are ready to cry out. But the right hon.
Gentleman, in his crying out, is actuated by careful and calm calculation. He is endeavouring to settle this matter—[Interruption]—he has, so to speak, to make a retreat under heavy fire of artillery. I do not criticise him or complain that he has made a retreat and has come forward on this occasion with an entire recognition of the position which the second Chamber still preserves in the constitutional life of the country.
Let us look into this for a moment or two on this general topic. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of privilege and so forth, but he cannot deny that under the Parliament Act, which is the foundation of our modern constitution, the House of Lords have an entire right, if they choose, to reject this Bill. That is the basis of his argument. If that is so, they obviously have a bargaining power, and it was intended by those who passed the Parliament Act—no one had more to do with it than I had; no one took more part in the Debates in the House except Mr. Asquith himself—in the Parliament Act it was intended, and always declared, that a real, effectual bargaining power would be reserved under it to the second Chamber. I cannot expect my Friends on this side of the House to agree with me, but I am dealing with the situation that has now arisen. We always argued that, once the House of Lords had been deprived of an absolute veto upon the proceedings of this popularly elected Chamber, once it had been given limited powers of delay and revision, those powers would become real and effective and that they ought to be used, and should be used on every occasion that was appropriate, and that is what is happening now. You have limited the powers and a new charter has been given to the House of Lords within the limits of the Parliament Act, a charter for which the Foreign Secretary, the Lord Privy Seal, the Secretary of State for India, and I daresay, half-a-dozen on that Bench are as much responsible as I am. Therefore we have entered upon a new era, and I hope a much more satisfactory era, in which the House of Lord is entitled to make a real and an active use of its limited powers in order to revise legislation and to bring a new element into the discussions of this House. After all, whatever vanity we may have about
our own Chamber, we must admit that we are subjected to a great number of electoral pressures, and all sorts of things are settled, as we have seen only to-day, across the Floor of the House and behind the Speaker's Chair and so forth. The intrigues that the Prime Minister has been carrying on with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) have shocked me. At any rate, I would suggest that the limited powers of the House of Lords, used effectively and reasonably, will bring into the settlement of these difficult legislative and social questions a new element and an influence without which the House of Commons by itself will not arrive at the best decisions. You will have a richer and a stronger mode of constitutional life if the kind of discussions now proceeding between the two Chambers, and within the limits within which they are proceeding, are permitted to continue to develop.
What is the case? What is the point on which these discussions have arisen? A flagitious Bill. There is no Measure which the right hon. Gentleman's Government have introduced which has more thoroughly deprived them of their prestige, not only in this country, but all over the world, where it is believed, and wrongly believed, that this country is a down-and-out country, that it is simply peopled by unemployed and burdened with ruined industries, and where it is believed that we have, by pursuing undoubtedly passionate policies sapped the strength and self-reliance of our working-classes. I am not saying that that is what is believed in every country about this island. I know myself when in the United States at the same time as the Prime Minister friends of England on the other side came up and said, "Do you think this new Labour Government will have the courage to sweep away the dole?" One has to explain, of course, our great and elaborate system of Unemployment Insurance which is not understood abroad, but nothing has reinforced the disparagement of this country more than some of the provisions for which the Attorney-General took especial responsibility in regard to "genuinely seeking work." We know very well that there is duress at work—there is duress at work in every Government in power in one part of it or another—and that the decisions embodied in this
Bill do not represent those which would have been put forward by legislators who were proceeding in an absolutely calm and uninfluenced atmosphere. Is not this the very kind of question on which the corrective aid of an external opinion carefully limited by a new constitutional warrant and rendered effective by the very use of that constitutional warrant, should enter into our affairs?
As to the actual provisions of this Amendment, whether it should be one year, or two years, or three years, it is not for us here on this side to interfere in the discussions which are being conducted between the two Chambers. Let them go forward. I have no right or authority whatever to pronounce as to what course should be taken in another place, but I say that this process of collaboration betwen the two Chambers, this instance of help being sought and accepted and given as between the two Chambers in a matter of this kind, will, I trust, inaugurate a series of useful and fruitful collaborations between the House of Commons and the House of Lords which will conduce to the improvement of our legislation and enrich the public life of the country.

Sir H. SAMUEL: The expressions of chief importance in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman were those, I venture to suggest, with which he opened and with which he concluded his observations, because it is indicated that tonight the House will be able to arrive at a unanimous decision. I feel sure that that will be a very great advantage. The remainder of his speech, if I may venture to say so, was wholly irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman cannot, of course, miss a convenient opportunity of sowing discord and stimulating controversy. I can assure him that all he has said on this occasion, and the many similar speeches which I am sure he will make in future, will be received on these benches with a spirit of complete indifference. It is interesting to learn from the right hon. Gentleman that he still stands by the principles of the Parliament Act, in the passing of which, as he has said, he took so large and valuable a share, but in any case he knows quite well that in his present company he has nothing whatever to fear from the House of Lords. For four and a half years the Second Chamber disappeared from the Constitution. Was there nothing
during all that time which needed the careful restraining hand of a revising body, such as that which he invoked this evening? But now, with a change of Government its activities speedily revive.
The point of principle mentioned in the speech of the Prime Minister is one of supreme importance, and we on these benches, now, as always in the past, will be prepared to support any Government in asserting and, if need be, in vindicating, the ancient privileges of this House against any aggression that may be attempted from any quarter. But, happily, the point of substance which is now in controversy between the two Houses has been reduced to very narrow dimensions. Their Lordships, very wisely in our view, have not insisted upon the deletion of Clause 4 of this Bill and the insertion of other and different provisions. The point of difference is now narrowed down simply to the question whether the duration of this Bill shall be one year or three years. I cannot imagine that the other House will impose upon the country the trouble and, in many quarters, the distress and suffering that would be involved by the rejection of this Bill. If the Bill is lost, 120,000 people will straightaway be thrown upon the Poor Law. If the Bill is lost, next Friday the funds in the Unemployment Insurance Fund will be exhausted and in the following week there will be nothing to provide maintenance for 1,400,000 unemployed and their dependants, who are an equal and even greater number. In these circumstances, I sincerely hope that the Government, having met the Lords very fully and in a spirit of great moderation, will be met equally by another place in the same spirit, and that the Amendment now proposed will be accepted, particularly if, as I presume will be the case, it goes to the other Chamber with the unanimous support of this House.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am sure the House will recognise that, though we may come to the conclusion that a final decision has now been taken upon this question, it would be unfair to the independent Members of the House of Commons if we remained silent on an occasion of this character. Therefore, the interest which the question has aroused among Members of all parties, as represented in the character of this Assembly to-
night, is one that I think ought to impress itself on the minds of the people of these Islands. It was a strange circumstance that the Tory party selected my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to be their spokesman on this occasion. I can bear testimony to the intellectual power and valour with which the right hon. Gentleman waged war against the House of Lords at the time when the Parliament Act was passed. This House rang with his indignant eloquence at the gross attempt which an unrepresentative Chamber had made to impose its will against the elected House. I confess that to-night I thought him less logical and less defensible than I have ever heard him in this House. The House of Lords justified itself, or tried to justify itself in those days by saying: "We are preventing great Constitutional changes being made without the will of the people being expressed." At that time the resentment of the nation was aroused against it, but some people justified it in its action.

The question which arises to-day is not some great Constitutional change but a great social and economic difficulty, but the spirit of the House of Lords is unchanged. It is not a great chamber of national safety, set up to prevent a too-ready rush of democracy towards certain changes, but it has shown that the spirit of the House of Lords is anti-democratic. When a great Measure of this character has been submitted to the elected representatives of the people and passed, after they have given it their considered judgment, in the interests of the most helpless and most defenceless of our people, the members of the House of Lords airily say: "We will not reject the Bill but we will pass an Amendment which obviously means the rejection of the Measure."

If there is one question which the elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons are eminently capable of deciding it is the question how to solve the unemployment problem. We are the direct representatives of the people, living among them and understanding their conditions. We sympathise with their conditions. We know something of their difficulties and the lives they live, and having listened to the
Government's proposals we believe that they are proposals that will meet the difficulty. The considered judgment of the House of Commons has been given, and now an unrepresentative Assembly—a body of men who know nothing of the working-class community: great landlords, great lawyers, men who have shone in many spheres of activity, but whose lives are foreign to the working people and who do not understand the condition of the people—set their judgment against the considered judgment of this House, elected by the people. The necessities of the situation demand that we should ask for no concession from the House of Lords; to do so would be an insult to the intelligence of the people who have returned us to this House. The action of the House of Lords is indefensible.

12.0 m.

The right hon. Member for Epping has taunted the Government with holding conversations with the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). Why did they hold these conversations? Because they were prepared to lose whatever prestige was associated with a Measure submitted to this House in order to secure a useful public purpose. The Government were prepared, in the true constitutional spirit of a minority Government, to consult with other elements in the House who are friendly and sympathetic, but who might find some parts of the Measure unacceptable to them. I cannot see what other course the Prime Minister and his Government could have adopted. If I may say it without offence, I have seen in this House, at a time of great industrial difficulty, when according to all parties this country is faced with troubles and difficulties unparalleled in our industrial history, a spirit of flippancy and amusement unworthy of the great situation we have to face. The business of this Government is not to have regard for its own prestige, or dignity, or party power, but to regard itself as the great modern instrument of the State, in which real democracy has found for the first time spokesmen who understand their spirit and appreciate their wants and desires. It is not for that great party to talk about its prestige or dignity, but to do things for the working classes. I would ask them not to care whether they have
to look for assistance here or there, but to secure it and save the nation from destruction. First, to support and preserve old industries, next, to foster new ones and concurrently with that to teach the people that it is only by constitutional effort that Parliament will do for them what revolution cannot do—namely, give them security in their lives, some measure of contentment and happiness and procure for them a measure of justice which should be the aim and ambition of all true patriots.

Lords Reason considered accordingly:
The Lords insist upon the amendments proposed by them in page 5, line 16; page 11, line 17; page 11, line 42; page 12, line 20; page 12, line 22; page 13, line 30; page 13, line 31; and page 14, line 13 for the following Reason:
Because they consider that, before passing permanent legislation, it is desirable that an opportunity shall be afforded to Parliament for further examining questions relating to unemployment insurance.

CLAUSE 6.—(Repeal of fourth statutory condition.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 16, at the end, insert "until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

Mr. SPEAKER: I am bound to notify the House that this Amendment and all the Lords Amendments that we have to consider to-night are breaches of privilege.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said Amendment by leaving out the words 'first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one,' and inserting the words 'expiration of this Act.'"—[Miss Bondfield.]

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand that this Amendment and all the other Amendments, except the one which immediately follows, which deal with the limitation to three years, are substantially to the same effect. Therefore, after what has already been said, I. do not propose either to vote or to speak on these Amendments—[Laughter]—provided, as those sounds enforce me to say, it remains quite clear that we do not
abate by one iota either our conviction of the mischievous nature of the Bill or our repudiation of the charges of harsh treatment and callous administration or lack of consideration for the unemployed which have been made once again this evening; and, finally, that we do not abate our belief that this whole subject will have to be brought again before this House long before the expiry of the time limit.

Mr. SPEAKER: I shall cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.

CLAUSE 16.—(Further amendment of s. 14 (2) of 17 & 18 Geo. 5. c. 30.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 17, at the end, insert:
Provided that no person shall be entitled to receive benefit under the said Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1927, as extended by the Unemployment Insurance (Transitional Provision Amendment) Act, 1929, or by the present Act, after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said Amendment by leaving out the words 'provided that no person' and inserting the words 'and accordingly the latest day in respect of which any person,' and by leaving out the words' after the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, 'and inserting the words' shall be the seventeenth day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-two.'"—[Miss Bondfield.] [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 42, at the end, insert "until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one."

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said Amendment by leaving out the words 'first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one,' and inserting the words 'expiration of this Act.'"—[Miss Bondfield.] [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Minor Amendments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 20, leave out "be made" and insert "have effect."

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist."—[Miss Bondfield] [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 12, line 22, at the end, insert
until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said Amendment by leaving out the words 'thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one,' and inserting the words 'expiration of the Act.'"—[Miss Bondfield.] [Special Entry.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Interpretation, repeal, application, short title, and commencement.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 30, leave out "are hereby repealed," and insert "shall."

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist."—[Miss Biondfield.] [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 31, at the end, insert
cease to have effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one.

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said Amendment by leaving out the words 'first day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-one,' and inserting the words 'expiration of this Act.'"—[Miss Bondfield.] [Special Entry.]

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 13, at the end, insert a new Sub-section.
(8) This Act shall continue in force until the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, and no longer, and thereafter the Unemployment Insurance Acts, 1920 to 1929, shall have effect as if this Act had not been passed.

Resolved,
That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to the Lords Amendment on which the Lords insist, but proposes to amend the said amendment by leaving out the words 'thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-one,' and inserting the words 'thirtieth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-three.'"—[Miss Bondfield.] [Special Entry.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Eleven Minutes after Twelve o'Clook.